Following the successful appeal by the EFL and subsequent relegation Macclesfield Town fans fear for the future of their club, they also feel that there are still double standards being applied in the EFL - from the Guardian
Macclesfield Town fans fear for future and blame EFL for relegation
- Club drop out of Football League after points deduction
- Supporters’ Trust says EFL unfairly treated club
Paul Wilson- Wed 12 Aug 2020 17.41 BSTLast modified on Wed 12 Aug 2020 17.42 BST
Macclesfield Town will be competing in the National League next season after they were relegated following an EFL appeal. Photograph: Serena Taylor/Newcastle United via Getty Images
Macclesfield Town supporters fear the club will not survive dropping out of the league after an EFL appeal enforced a further points deduction on Tuesday, and believe their perennially cash-strapped operation has been the victim of a witch-hunt by the football authorities.
The Silkmen finished next to bottom of League Two after fixtures were suspended and a points per game ratio worked out, with Stevenage at that point heading for the National League. The EFL, however, was dissatisfied with a 13-point deduction over a Macclesfield season blighted by winding-up petitions, non-payment of wages, player strikes and unfulfilled fixtures, and when an independent appeal ruled this week that a further suspended deduction of four points should be invoked Stevenage were reprieved as Macclesfield’s new points per game figure left them bottom.
This is the latest twist in a long-running saga of ineffective ownership – even the club chairman, Amar Alkadhi, admitted a while ago that Macclesfield deserved to be sanctioned because “paying wages late is not right” – though at that time it was not thought relegation would be the ultimate sanction. One Macclesfield supporter whose worst fears have just come to pass, Andy Worth, who chairs the Silkmen Supporters’ Trust, wrote to the Football League last month expressing his concerns over what was about to happen.
“The last few weeks have seen a publicly orchestrated campaign by the EFL to get Macclesfield relegated, and action the EFL well knows will obliterate the club,” Worth said. “It is the SST view that the EFL are inconsistent in their decisions, to say the least. Stevenage escaped a points deduction regarding the postponement of a game against Oldham, and Bolton missed two games without any points deduction. We feel that miscreant owners should be punished, rather than clubs, and it is also our view that the EFL decision to appeal amounted to a witch-hunt towards Macclesfield Town.”
Following confirmation of Macclesfield’s relegation the head coach, Mark Kennedy, and his assistant, Danny Butterfield, effectively resigned, indicating they did not wish to sign new contracts for next season, although many supporters were of the opinion they should have gone by now due to poor results. In theory the club’s finances should be boosted by EFL parachute payments next season, which should permit a degree of stability, and some fans are even looking forward to meeting old rivals Stockport and Altrincham in the National League.
Most are sceptical that Alkadhi has the ability or the desire to turn the club around, however, and imagine Macclesfield’s well-publicised financial difficulties will continue in any division under present ownership. Alkadhi stepped down from his position as chairman earlier this month but remains Macclesfield’s majority shareholder until he can sell his stake in the club.
Football's Magic Money Tree
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Anyone who thinks that the coming season will not incurr TV rebates of some kind, should look no further than this interview with the head of BT sport at SportsBusiness.com to correct the notion - this is what is so dangerous about the Premier League deferring in full (if reports are to be believed) the impact of last seasons rebates
Simon Green, BT Sport | Closed-door matches “not the product we paid for”
Adam Nelson, Europe office - August 12, 2020
- Sports media rights values likely to take a hit due to economic recession
- Changing consumer habits will also have impact
- Green says that sport without fans is “a different product”
The Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing recession is likely to have a “lasting impact” on the value of sports media rights, says Simon Green, head of BT Sport, adding that for the broadcasting world, “the ’new normal’ is not going to look very much like the old normal.”
Speaking to SportBusiness, Green cautions that it is not as simple as predicting a drop in media rights values, though he notes the recession and reduced spending power of consumers will inevitably exert downward pressure.
“It’s very difficult to predict exactly what’s going to happen with fees for rights and whether or not the values will drop,” he says. “I’ve no doubt Covid-19 will accelerate some of the trends we were already seeing before the pandemic, and it introduces some new factors of its own.”
Those pre-pandemic trends include static or falling fees for major properties in the UK: BT Sport paid no increase in its most recent Uefa Champions League acquisition, while BT Sport and Sky Sports cut their collective Premier League payment from £5.14bn ($6.74bn) for 2016–19 to £4.46bn for the current cycle.
In its first financial statement to take the impact of the pandemic into account, the wider BT group showed a seven-per-cent year-on-year drop in revenue for its first quarter of 2020-21, while Sky witnessed an even steeper decline of 15 per cent. Both companies cited the lack of sport and subsequent refunds offered to customers as contributing factors to that decline, and both are likely to seek a reduction in the fees they are paying across the board.
Consumer habits and expectations
Changing consumer habits will continue to affect rights values, Green believes, though their impact is harder to gauge. As the consumption of live sport in the home – as opposed to in stadiums or in pubs or other communal environments – has grown, so too has the way viewers access content changed. With families staying at home and fighting over who gets to watch what on the main television, BT Sport has seen “a huge adoption of people using big-screen apps through streaming boxes and consoles, as well as small-screen apps on tablets and phones,” he says. BT Sport serendipitously launched its app for Apple TV, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in February, just a month before the UK’s lockdown came into effect.
“Customers now expect to be able to access the content they’re paying for, wherever they want to access it; they also expect enhanced ‘second screen’ experiences. That opens up a lot of options to us in terms of getting under the bonnet of things and allows for innovation and creative ideas for organisations to get to their customers in a more efficient and direct way.”
That, Green adds, will lead to “the value of rights and the value of pay-TV changing in certain ways. It’s almost impossible to say exactly how, but I’m sure that it will.”
Similarly, the widespread availability of almost every fixture from the coronavirus-affected seasons of major sporting competitions is something that could firm into an expectation, with consumers demanding more content for less following the lockdown.
Bristol Bears vs Harlequins in one of final Premiership fixtures to take place before suspension of the season (Photo by Harry Trump/Getty Images)
As reported by SportBusiness last week, BT Sport is working alongside Premiership Rugby to ensure that season ticket holders can still watch all their team’s home games live. All 57 of the remaining matches in this season’s Premiership will be available to BT Sport subscribers, and the broadcaster is also collaborating with clubs to offer the games to season ticket holders who don’t already pay for BT Sport. A £25-a-month Rugby Pass has been announced to offer contract-free access to the games, and similar pay-per-view-style solutions have been proposed for other sports that rely heavily on matchday not just for the income from gate receipts, but for engaging with their supporters.
The Premier League is a different case, a globally popular competition where match day revenues represent on average less than 10 per cent of clubs’ income. When it returned for the conclusion of the 2019-20 season following its lengthy “Project Restart” deliberations, the league struck a deal with its four domestic broadcast partners – BT Sport alongside Sky Sports, Amazon Prime and the BBC – to show every fixture live, though that arrangement has not been extended into 2020-21. Rumours persist that a similar deal to that in Premiership Rugby is in the works to allow season ticket holders access to games and provide them with an incentive to renew, but Green cautions against taking a “one-size fits all” approach.
“It’s difficult to forecast exactly what’s going to happen in terms of the impact of crowds coming back, or not coming back, as the case may be,” he says. “The matches post-Project Restart were under a very particular set of circumstances, and it was right for us all to adopt what we did. Likewise with the Premiership Rugby arrangement, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that because we’ve got this model in rugby, let’s do the same in football. Each sport has its own particular demands and approaches.”
Sport without fans “a different product”
Green also suggests that in the medium-term he doesn’t see a huge appetite – either from rights-holders or on the broadcaster side – for major changes in the ways media deals have been structured over the seven years since BT Sport launched, even if fans become expectant of being able to watch a far higher proportion of fixtures live.
“The major relationships that we have – particularly with the big domestic football rights deals, the big rugby deals, the likes of MotoGP – I think they will remain similar, because it gives customers a way to engage with high-end content, and I don’t think that desire from the consumer is going to change,” he says.
“What we’d ideally like to get back to is the level of exclusivity and the structure of what is in the agreement between us and the rights-holder. We entered into these kind of deals with a level of exclusivity over what we have access to and what remains with the rights-holder, because it’s the arrangement that, in the current environment until earlier this year, still works best for everyone.
“If the extraordinary set of circumstances we find ourselves in now continues, with home fans unable to see the game, we understand it’s best if we change those arrangements, to suit the fans. But going forward, we would always want to retain the structure of the original deal.”
The lack of crowds isn’t just of concern to clubs and rights-holders. Green is clear on the importance of fans to the broadcast experience, describing the events BT Sport has broadcast since the easing of lockdown as “a different product.”
“We’re not getting what we originally had, the product that we paid for,” says Green. “If we’ve learned two things from this pandemic so far, it’s that our customers still want to watch live sports, and that live sports are not the same without a crowd. Sport is still incredible, it still has value, and people still want to watch, but we are as desperate as anyone else to return to a situation where fans and atmospheres are back in stadiums.”
Simon Green, BT Sport | Closed-door matches “not the product we paid for”
Adam Nelson, Europe office - August 12, 2020
- Sports media rights values likely to take a hit due to economic recession
- Changing consumer habits will also have impact
- Green says that sport without fans is “a different product”
The Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing recession is likely to have a “lasting impact” on the value of sports media rights, says Simon Green, head of BT Sport, adding that for the broadcasting world, “the ’new normal’ is not going to look very much like the old normal.”
Speaking to SportBusiness, Green cautions that it is not as simple as predicting a drop in media rights values, though he notes the recession and reduced spending power of consumers will inevitably exert downward pressure.
“It’s very difficult to predict exactly what’s going to happen with fees for rights and whether or not the values will drop,” he says. “I’ve no doubt Covid-19 will accelerate some of the trends we were already seeing before the pandemic, and it introduces some new factors of its own.”
Those pre-pandemic trends include static or falling fees for major properties in the UK: BT Sport paid no increase in its most recent Uefa Champions League acquisition, while BT Sport and Sky Sports cut their collective Premier League payment from £5.14bn ($6.74bn) for 2016–19 to £4.46bn for the current cycle.
In its first financial statement to take the impact of the pandemic into account, the wider BT group showed a seven-per-cent year-on-year drop in revenue for its first quarter of 2020-21, while Sky witnessed an even steeper decline of 15 per cent. Both companies cited the lack of sport and subsequent refunds offered to customers as contributing factors to that decline, and both are likely to seek a reduction in the fees they are paying across the board.
Consumer habits and expectations
Changing consumer habits will continue to affect rights values, Green believes, though their impact is harder to gauge. As the consumption of live sport in the home – as opposed to in stadiums or in pubs or other communal environments – has grown, so too has the way viewers access content changed. With families staying at home and fighting over who gets to watch what on the main television, BT Sport has seen “a huge adoption of people using big-screen apps through streaming boxes and consoles, as well as small-screen apps on tablets and phones,” he says. BT Sport serendipitously launched its app for Apple TV, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in February, just a month before the UK’s lockdown came into effect.
“Customers now expect to be able to access the content they’re paying for, wherever they want to access it; they also expect enhanced ‘second screen’ experiences. That opens up a lot of options to us in terms of getting under the bonnet of things and allows for innovation and creative ideas for organisations to get to their customers in a more efficient and direct way.”
That, Green adds, will lead to “the value of rights and the value of pay-TV changing in certain ways. It’s almost impossible to say exactly how, but I’m sure that it will.”
Similarly, the widespread availability of almost every fixture from the coronavirus-affected seasons of major sporting competitions is something that could firm into an expectation, with consumers demanding more content for less following the lockdown.
Bristol Bears vs Harlequins in one of final Premiership fixtures to take place before suspension of the season (Photo by Harry Trump/Getty Images)
As reported by SportBusiness last week, BT Sport is working alongside Premiership Rugby to ensure that season ticket holders can still watch all their team’s home games live. All 57 of the remaining matches in this season’s Premiership will be available to BT Sport subscribers, and the broadcaster is also collaborating with clubs to offer the games to season ticket holders who don’t already pay for BT Sport. A £25-a-month Rugby Pass has been announced to offer contract-free access to the games, and similar pay-per-view-style solutions have been proposed for other sports that rely heavily on matchday not just for the income from gate receipts, but for engaging with their supporters.
The Premier League is a different case, a globally popular competition where match day revenues represent on average less than 10 per cent of clubs’ income. When it returned for the conclusion of the 2019-20 season following its lengthy “Project Restart” deliberations, the league struck a deal with its four domestic broadcast partners – BT Sport alongside Sky Sports, Amazon Prime and the BBC – to show every fixture live, though that arrangement has not been extended into 2020-21. Rumours persist that a similar deal to that in Premiership Rugby is in the works to allow season ticket holders access to games and provide them with an incentive to renew, but Green cautions against taking a “one-size fits all” approach.
“It’s difficult to forecast exactly what’s going to happen in terms of the impact of crowds coming back, or not coming back, as the case may be,” he says. “The matches post-Project Restart were under a very particular set of circumstances, and it was right for us all to adopt what we did. Likewise with the Premiership Rugby arrangement, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that because we’ve got this model in rugby, let’s do the same in football. Each sport has its own particular demands and approaches.”
Sport without fans “a different product”
Green also suggests that in the medium-term he doesn’t see a huge appetite – either from rights-holders or on the broadcaster side – for major changes in the ways media deals have been structured over the seven years since BT Sport launched, even if fans become expectant of being able to watch a far higher proportion of fixtures live.
“The major relationships that we have – particularly with the big domestic football rights deals, the big rugby deals, the likes of MotoGP – I think they will remain similar, because it gives customers a way to engage with high-end content, and I don’t think that desire from the consumer is going to change,” he says.
“What we’d ideally like to get back to is the level of exclusivity and the structure of what is in the agreement between us and the rights-holder. We entered into these kind of deals with a level of exclusivity over what we have access to and what remains with the rights-holder, because it’s the arrangement that, in the current environment until earlier this year, still works best for everyone.
“If the extraordinary set of circumstances we find ourselves in now continues, with home fans unable to see the game, we understand it’s best if we change those arrangements, to suit the fans. But going forward, we would always want to retain the structure of the original deal.”
The lack of crowds isn’t just of concern to clubs and rights-holders. Green is clear on the importance of fans to the broadcast experience, describing the events BT Sport has broadcast since the easing of lockdown as “a different product.”
“We’re not getting what we originally had, the product that we paid for,” says Green. “If we’ve learned two things from this pandemic so far, it’s that our customers still want to watch live sports, and that live sports are not the same without a crowd. Sport is still incredible, it still has value, and people still want to watch, but we are as desperate as anyone else to return to a situation where fans and atmospheres are back in stadiums.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
SportsProMedia.com with 5 scenarios for the post covid sports industry
Refresh https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... cs-refresh
Restoration https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... estoration
Reset https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... mics-reset
Retreat https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... cs-retreat
Realignment https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... ealignment
Refresh https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... cs-refresh
Restoration https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... estoration
Reset https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... mics-reset
Retreat https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... cs-retreat
Realignment https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the ... ealignment
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Norwich's hope of building up it's finances during it's return to the Premier League has not materialised as a result of covid - the first couple of lines of this interview - make this startling clear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Ws9Z7AtBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Ws9Z7AtBk
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The owner of Sheffield United talks to Forbes.com
EDITORS' PICK|7,377 views|Aug 8, 2020,02:08pm EDT
Sheffield United's Saudi Boss On Soccer's Future
Samindra Kunti
Sheffield United's new co-owner Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud meets the fans ... [+] PA IMAGES VIA GETTY IMAGES
Prince Abdullah is worried. On the face of it, the owner of Sheffield United has no reason to be so. His club was tipped for relegation in the Premier League, but instead the team of coach Chris Wilder enjoyed a stellar campaign, finishing 9th.
It was the culmination of the club’s remarkable rise in the space of three seasons from League One to the elite echelon of English soccer or ‘our football’ as the prince calls it.
Abdullah bin Mosaad bin Abdulaziz al Saud is a prince and founder of the Saudi Paper Manufacturing Company. He has been a lifelong fan of American football and the 49ers, ever since he watched Super Bowl XXIII - 49ers vs. Bengals - at a hotel in Paris in 1989. The prince thinks soccer can and should learn from America’s favorite pastime, now that the global game is slowly returning from lockdown and confronting a reality of financial downsizing. “My passion for American football made me study and look at how money works in American sports,” explains Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Their model is better than our model because of the salary cap. How much you spend is tied to the revenue. The players get a certain percentage of revenue. That protects the club. Some of the great clubs are accumulating debts. We need to look at a fair system where spending is tied to revenue, so clubs don’t go crazy and spend money that they don’t have which leaves the club in a difficult position and leads to bankruptcy.”
On Friday, EFL clubs voted to introduce a salary cap of £2.5m and £1.5m for League One and League Two. This season, Sheffield United had a low wage bill in the Premier League at £56m, but the club stands to lose £20m in revenue following the coronavirus shutdown. In recent weeks, Wilder, a demanding coach, indicated that the club needs more investment, better facilities and infrastructure to keep competing in the top flight. His message to the owner is simple: the club needs to catch up.
Abdullah bin Mosaad agrees with his coach, arguing that “we need to improve the facilities” but a repeat of signing the next Sander Berge, at around £22m a club-record acquisition in January, is not on the cards.
By 2021, Sheffield will develop a new training centre. It’s the prince’s first major structural investment since he acquired full ownership of the club after a legal dispute with previous co-owner Kevin McCabe. “At Sheffield United, we decided to not take money from the government and to pay our employees - to be fair to everyone who works for us,” says Abdullah bin Mosaad. “We have to find a fair way to deal with it. What is the best way to protect everyone - the clubs, the players, the employees?”
The prince considers himself a “custodian”, who needs to understand the fabric of both his team and local community to build a prosperous club. “Our commitment to all the clubs we invest in is simple: the day we leave the club we want it to be in much better shape than the day we arrived,” says Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Profit is very important, but it can’t be the only thing you look for. You have to improve the team.”
Last weekend, Beerschot, his second club, gained promotion to the Belgian topflight. The circumstances were fitting for the unprecedented times we live in. For months and weeks OH Leuven and Beerschot had worked towards the return leg of the play-off promotion. It is a match that can define and shape the future of any club, but when the Belgian Pro League decided to expand next season’s top flight to 18 teams Leuven and Beerschot were suddenly guaranteed a spot among the elite.
The team of coach Hernan Losada still won the championship, running out 1-4 winners in Leuven. It mattered to the prince; it mattered to the coach, who burst out in celebration on the touchline. The Argentine embodies the Beerschot fairytale. He played in the amateur division for the club before becoming the head coach.
It is easy to draw a parallel between the Antwerp club and Sheffield. Beerschot is also a community club with strong traditions and a local character. In 2013, the club was declared bankrupt and after falling on hard times in the lower leagues, its ascent has been meteoric. In 2018, the prince acquired a 50% stake, which he recently increased to 75%. He has been taken in by Belgian soccer.
“The club was referred to me by my friend Jan Van Winckel,” says Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Belgium has done really well in the last ten years. A lot of good players come from Belgium. When I heard about Beerschot, there were many things that I liked: it is a big club, but it was going through bad times, like Sheffield United when I joined. They have a good history, a good academy. They produced good players in the past. They have a big fan base. The more I read about the club, the more I liked it.”
At this stage, he doesn’t foresee full ownership. Minority shareholders Francis Vrancken and Phillippe Verellen bring important local know-how. The first priority, like with Sheffield, is to ensure that the club remains in the top flight before setting more ambitious goals. That will require investment. “It is not important how much you spend, but it is important how much you spend wisely,” explains Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Spending a lot doesn't always guarantee you success in football. We will not be satisfied to be just any other team in the top division. We want to be a good team.”
Glory in soccer, Abdullah bin Mosaad realizes, is transient. The achievements of the past seasons, both in England and Belgium, can quickly unravel. The football industry is a taxing one, even more so during coronavirus times. He says: “It is a very strange year, not just in football but in everything. No fans. As the American words say: We are in unchartered territory. Everything is a bit in chaos. What the last three four months taught us is that something can happen that you have never experienced before, so throw all your forecasts away. It adds importance to managing the clubs responsibly. That is why I think owners have extra responsibility to run the club responsibly - to be ambitious, but not to be unrealistic or crazy.”
EDITORS' PICK|7,377 views|Aug 8, 2020,02:08pm EDT
Sheffield United's Saudi Boss On Soccer's Future
Samindra Kunti
Sheffield United's new co-owner Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud meets the fans ... [+] PA IMAGES VIA GETTY IMAGES
Prince Abdullah is worried. On the face of it, the owner of Sheffield United has no reason to be so. His club was tipped for relegation in the Premier League, but instead the team of coach Chris Wilder enjoyed a stellar campaign, finishing 9th.
It was the culmination of the club’s remarkable rise in the space of three seasons from League One to the elite echelon of English soccer or ‘our football’ as the prince calls it.
Abdullah bin Mosaad bin Abdulaziz al Saud is a prince and founder of the Saudi Paper Manufacturing Company. He has been a lifelong fan of American football and the 49ers, ever since he watched Super Bowl XXIII - 49ers vs. Bengals - at a hotel in Paris in 1989. The prince thinks soccer can and should learn from America’s favorite pastime, now that the global game is slowly returning from lockdown and confronting a reality of financial downsizing. “My passion for American football made me study and look at how money works in American sports,” explains Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Their model is better than our model because of the salary cap. How much you spend is tied to the revenue. The players get a certain percentage of revenue. That protects the club. Some of the great clubs are accumulating debts. We need to look at a fair system where spending is tied to revenue, so clubs don’t go crazy and spend money that they don’t have which leaves the club in a difficult position and leads to bankruptcy.”
On Friday, EFL clubs voted to introduce a salary cap of £2.5m and £1.5m for League One and League Two. This season, Sheffield United had a low wage bill in the Premier League at £56m, but the club stands to lose £20m in revenue following the coronavirus shutdown. In recent weeks, Wilder, a demanding coach, indicated that the club needs more investment, better facilities and infrastructure to keep competing in the top flight. His message to the owner is simple: the club needs to catch up.
Abdullah bin Mosaad agrees with his coach, arguing that “we need to improve the facilities” but a repeat of signing the next Sander Berge, at around £22m a club-record acquisition in January, is not on the cards.
By 2021, Sheffield will develop a new training centre. It’s the prince’s first major structural investment since he acquired full ownership of the club after a legal dispute with previous co-owner Kevin McCabe. “At Sheffield United, we decided to not take money from the government and to pay our employees - to be fair to everyone who works for us,” says Abdullah bin Mosaad. “We have to find a fair way to deal with it. What is the best way to protect everyone - the clubs, the players, the employees?”
The prince considers himself a “custodian”, who needs to understand the fabric of both his team and local community to build a prosperous club. “Our commitment to all the clubs we invest in is simple: the day we leave the club we want it to be in much better shape than the day we arrived,” says Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Profit is very important, but it can’t be the only thing you look for. You have to improve the team.”
Last weekend, Beerschot, his second club, gained promotion to the Belgian topflight. The circumstances were fitting for the unprecedented times we live in. For months and weeks OH Leuven and Beerschot had worked towards the return leg of the play-off promotion. It is a match that can define and shape the future of any club, but when the Belgian Pro League decided to expand next season’s top flight to 18 teams Leuven and Beerschot were suddenly guaranteed a spot among the elite.
The team of coach Hernan Losada still won the championship, running out 1-4 winners in Leuven. It mattered to the prince; it mattered to the coach, who burst out in celebration on the touchline. The Argentine embodies the Beerschot fairytale. He played in the amateur division for the club before becoming the head coach.
It is easy to draw a parallel between the Antwerp club and Sheffield. Beerschot is also a community club with strong traditions and a local character. In 2013, the club was declared bankrupt and after falling on hard times in the lower leagues, its ascent has been meteoric. In 2018, the prince acquired a 50% stake, which he recently increased to 75%. He has been taken in by Belgian soccer.
“The club was referred to me by my friend Jan Van Winckel,” says Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Belgium has done really well in the last ten years. A lot of good players come from Belgium. When I heard about Beerschot, there were many things that I liked: it is a big club, but it was going through bad times, like Sheffield United when I joined. They have a good history, a good academy. They produced good players in the past. They have a big fan base. The more I read about the club, the more I liked it.”
At this stage, he doesn’t foresee full ownership. Minority shareholders Francis Vrancken and Phillippe Verellen bring important local know-how. The first priority, like with Sheffield, is to ensure that the club remains in the top flight before setting more ambitious goals. That will require investment. “It is not important how much you spend, but it is important how much you spend wisely,” explains Abdullah bin Mosaad. “Spending a lot doesn't always guarantee you success in football. We will not be satisfied to be just any other team in the top division. We want to be a good team.”
Glory in soccer, Abdullah bin Mosaad realizes, is transient. The achievements of the past seasons, both in England and Belgium, can quickly unravel. The football industry is a taxing one, even more so during coronavirus times. He says: “It is a very strange year, not just in football but in everything. No fans. As the American words say: We are in unchartered territory. Everything is a bit in chaos. What the last three four months taught us is that something can happen that you have never experienced before, so throw all your forecasts away. It adds importance to managing the clubs responsibly. That is why I think owners have extra responsibility to run the club responsibly - to be ambitious, but not to be unrealistic or crazy.”
-
GodIsADeeJay81
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Talksport currently talking about financal disparity between PL and EFL.
Whole show about it.
Whole show about it.
This user liked this post: Chester Perry
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Our friend The Esk, like you and I, also finds it "poor governance" - https://twitter.com/theesk/status/1293283951709126657Royboyclaret wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:40 pmInteresting development from the PL. However, the fact remains that the liability relates to the season just ended, that is 9 matches from '19/'20 season where the product did not meet with broadcaster's specified requirement. As such, if I were Financial Accountant at the Turf, provision would be made for the potential £17m cost in the accounts to year-end Jun'20.
As painful as that may be, simply to defer the liability to a future year when similar or more likely worse charges will affect us, would not be a prudent or sensible approach. We already know we are faced with a new season where games are likely to remain behind closed doors indefinitely, so for me, this reduction of some £17m to Turnover is far better allocated in the season to which it relates. These are unprecedented and uncertain times and simply to delay an inevitable liability in the financial accounts would not even be an option.
-
GodIsADeeJay81
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
They're about to start discussing Bolton.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:07 pmTalksport currently talking about financal disparity between PL and EFL.
Whole show about it.
Wonder if they raise the point that Eddie ran the club into the ground and then sold it when it was holed below the waterline...
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I am listening in and will link the playback laterGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:24 pmThey're about to start discussing Bolton.
Wonder if they raise the point that Eddie ran the club into the ground and then sold it when it was holed below the waterline...
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
If anyone is interested it can be listened to on play back here - starts with the 8pm slot and runs through until 10pmGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:07 pmTalksport currently talking about financal disparity between PL and EFL.
Whole show about it.
https://talksport.com/radio/listen-agai ... 597258800/
This user liked this post: conyoviejo
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Tifo Football looks at how climate change will impact the game in the coming years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRAusanxXkg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRAusanxXkg
-
huw.Y.WattfromWare
- Posts: 3393
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1004 times
- Has Liked: 905 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This seasons PL pay outs.
- C5A32D44-AE29-4350-9F0E-283F94397949.jpeg (282.07 KiB) Viewed 3844 times
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
huw.Y.WattfromWare that is an estimate from @SwissRamble (posted yesterday morning) not the official announcement from The Premier League which we are still waiting for - it may be accurate it may be some distance away - especially as we do not know what the commercial income is for the Premier League, the figure used is from the last cycle
This user liked this post: huw.Y.WattfromWare
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
@KieranMaguire posts some data to view while listening to thisChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:13 pmIf anyone is interested it can be listened to on play back here - starts with the 8pm slot and runs through until 10pm
https://talksport.com/radio/listen-agai ... 597258800/
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 0545817602
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The previous owners of Chesterfield pull a fast one on the new trust ownership as a six figure sum disappears before their eyes - from the Derbyshire Times
New Chesterfield FC owners "very disappointed" after missing out on six-figure sum from Liam Cooper's Leeds United Premier League promotion
The new owners of Chesterfield FC are “very disappointed” after finding out that they have missed out on receiving a six-figure sum following former player Liam Cooper’s promotion to the Premier League with Leeds United.
By Liam Norcliffe
Wednesday, 12th August 2020, 2:28 pm
When the Spireites sold Cooper to Leeds in 2014 they negotiated a clause which would entitle them to an additional sum of money if the Whites won promotion to the Premier League and if the defender made a certain amount of appearances during the same season.
Leeds won the Championship title this campaign and Cooper played a large chunk of games, triggering the windfall.
The Spireites were taken over by the Chesterfield FC Community Trust last week, and they had been “assured” by the previous ownership that the payment, believed to be around £150,000, would arrive this week.
But to the trust’s “surprise”, they have since found out that the money had already been received by the club before they took over.
Spireites chairman, Mike Goodwin, said: “We are naturally very disappointed to have missed out on receiving a six-figure sum from the sell-on clause, but the matter was out of our hands.
"Having been assured that the payment was due to be received by the club this week, it was a great surprise when we took charge of the company bank account to learn that the money had already been transferred prior to the community trust taking ownership.
"It is disappointing, but we had factored in the possibility that this sum of money may not be available to us as it was all down to the timing of the payment and we had no way of influencing that.
"On a positive note, we have been very encouraged by the terrific response from supporters since the takeover was announced.”
In response, former Chesterfield owner, Dave Allen, said in a statement: “The long and protracted takeover has consistently been delayed by the community trust and the councils, not us.
“If they had got all their ducks in a row earlier then they would have obviously had the benefit of the money.
“If they had also conducted a final audit prior to purchasing the club they would have seen that the money had been already received before they went public in the press conference. You don’t buy a house without taking a final meter reading,
“During the delays I had to inject a further £500,000 into the club, so I don’t see a problem.
“They will of course benefit from any sell on of Sam Morsy in the future, so I guess we are even.”
Former Spireites company secretary, Ashley Carson, added: “We were surprised to see the Liam Cooper money enter our bank account earlier than anticipated. However the six figure sum was only used to pay off CFC 2001 Ltd debt prior to the takeover.”
New Chesterfield FC owners "very disappointed" after missing out on six-figure sum from Liam Cooper's Leeds United Premier League promotion
The new owners of Chesterfield FC are “very disappointed” after finding out that they have missed out on receiving a six-figure sum following former player Liam Cooper’s promotion to the Premier League with Leeds United.
By Liam Norcliffe
Wednesday, 12th August 2020, 2:28 pm
When the Spireites sold Cooper to Leeds in 2014 they negotiated a clause which would entitle them to an additional sum of money if the Whites won promotion to the Premier League and if the defender made a certain amount of appearances during the same season.
Leeds won the Championship title this campaign and Cooper played a large chunk of games, triggering the windfall.
The Spireites were taken over by the Chesterfield FC Community Trust last week, and they had been “assured” by the previous ownership that the payment, believed to be around £150,000, would arrive this week.
But to the trust’s “surprise”, they have since found out that the money had already been received by the club before they took over.
Spireites chairman, Mike Goodwin, said: “We are naturally very disappointed to have missed out on receiving a six-figure sum from the sell-on clause, but the matter was out of our hands.
"Having been assured that the payment was due to be received by the club this week, it was a great surprise when we took charge of the company bank account to learn that the money had already been transferred prior to the community trust taking ownership.
"It is disappointing, but we had factored in the possibility that this sum of money may not be available to us as it was all down to the timing of the payment and we had no way of influencing that.
"On a positive note, we have been very encouraged by the terrific response from supporters since the takeover was announced.”
In response, former Chesterfield owner, Dave Allen, said in a statement: “The long and protracted takeover has consistently been delayed by the community trust and the councils, not us.
“If they had got all their ducks in a row earlier then they would have obviously had the benefit of the money.
“If they had also conducted a final audit prior to purchasing the club they would have seen that the money had been already received before they went public in the press conference. You don’t buy a house without taking a final meter reading,
“During the delays I had to inject a further £500,000 into the club, so I don’t see a problem.
“They will of course benefit from any sell on of Sam Morsy in the future, so I guess we are even.”
Former Spireites company secretary, Ashley Carson, added: “We were surprised to see the Liam Cooper money enter our bank account earlier than anticipated. However the six figure sum was only used to pay off CFC 2001 Ltd debt prior to the takeover.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
English Football's own fears about getting fans back are escalating - from the MAil
Premier League clubs in stand-off with the Government amid fears politicians' plans for the safe return of fans to stadiums in groups of SIX could be unworkable - with economic concerns for teams in lower divisions
- There are hopes the return of some fans can be sanctioned for early October
- Target is for 30 per cent occupancy at grounds with tickets sold in blocks of six
- Premier League clubs are concerned about the practicality of the plans
By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 23:08, 12 August 2020 | UPDATED: 23:49, 12 August 2020
Premier League clubs are at loggerheads with the Government over plans for the safe return of fans to stadiums.
Sportsmail has learned that the Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA), the public body responsible for ensuring the safety of spectators, have based their target of 30 per cent occupancy at stadiums when fans are permitted to return on selling tickets in blocks of six, which the clubs consider impractical.
Talks remain ongoing between the Premier League, the clubs and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport but there are concerns that if the SGSA recommendations are adopted then the planned return of fans will prove unworkable and could be uneconomic for those in the lower divisions.
The clubs' priority when crowds are allowed is to ensure that as many season-ticket holders as possible are able to attend matches, with their data showing very few fans go to games in groups of six.
Given most season-ticket holders generally attend games in much smaller groups, it is feared that clubs will only be able to operate grounds at around 20 per cent of capacity if they are to comply with the Government's social distancing guidance. Such an occupancy rate would still be worthwhile in the Premier League due to their high ticket prices but clubs in the lower leagues may find it uneconomic.
The Government remain hopeful of sanctioning the return of some spectators for the start of October, despite the setbacks that led to several planned test events being cancelled earlier this month. On Wednesday, Sportsmail revealed that the plan for fans to attend the Community Shield at Wembley this month is off.
The Premier League have made the return of fans their No 1 priority for next season after Project Restart was successfully completed behind closed doors.
'The season may have finished but our work doesn't stop,' said Premier League chief executive Richard Masters. We have a working group examining practical solutions, working with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and medical experts, and looking at where we can be innovative.
'We must test and prove what is possible, in tandem with the authorities, within a framework that is flexible and can adapt to fast-moving circumstances and developing expertise.'
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Meanwhile lower league club Darlington hope to take a more financially rewarding approach - simply borrow a bigger stadium
https://darlingtonfc.co.uk/news/quakers ... ty-grounds
https://darlingtonfc.co.uk/news/quakers ... ty-grounds
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Football Today Podcasts asks "Is Gianni Infantino a criminal"
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... a-criminal
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... a-criminal
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I am not sure that this is actual new news - The Mail on the central difficulty in the Saudi takeover bid for Newcastle United
Newcastle's £300m takeover collapsed because of concerns the Saudi Arabian state would control the club as it's revealed Premier League's offer to break the deadlock was REJECTED by consortium during crucial Owners and Directors Test
- Newcastle's £300m proposed takeover bid dramatically fell through last month
- Sportsmail can reveal it collapsed due to a dispute over who would own the club
- Premier League wished to make plain the link between club and Saudi Arabia
- Offer to place the issue in arbitration was rejected before the buyers pulled out
By MARTIN SAMUEL FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:44, 13 August 2020
Newcastle United’s takeover collapsed in a stalemate over whether the Saudi Arabian state would be in control of the club after the deal went through, Sportsmail can reveal.
A petition approaching 108,000 signatures has now been raised, calling on the Premier League to explain their reasons for delaying the takeover, after Mike Ashley accepted a £300million offer from a consortium made up of the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, the Reuben Brothers and Amanda Staveley.
Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, has been personally targeted, with his home address circulated on online fan forums.
The dispute concerned the completion of a key Premier League form in the owners and directors test regarding club control and ownership — and the 80 per cent stake in the club that would reside with Saudi Arabia.
The Premier League wished to make plain the link between the Saudi Arabian state and Newcastle, but met resistance. An offer to place the issue in arbitration to break the deadlock was also rebuffed before the consortium announced it was pulling out. The Premier League have never rejected the Newcastle takeover.
The lengthy legal dispute over state ownership explains why the process dragged on for months, with the Premier League reluctant to make a definitive ruling.
What seemed like inertia on the Premier League’s part was in fact an impasse, with the League refusing to recognise the Saudi Arabia PIF as different to or independent from the state, given that its chairman, Mohammed bin Salman, is also the de facto head of Saudi Arabia.
Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of the PIF, was to be the principal Saudi representative on the Newcastle board, but the Premier League were unhappy the direct link to state governance was not being made clear. This sparked fears the owners and directors test would not be passed. It was at that point arbitration was suggested with the League seeking an independent ruling on who would own Newcastle.
If an arbitrator had ruled in Newcastle’s favour, the Saudis would have been required to go ahead with owner registration. This would have given the League the right to call Newcastle’s ownership to account over TV piracy by network beoutQ.
Newcastle's £300m takeover collapsed because of concerns the Saudi Arabian state would control the club as it's revealed Premier League's offer to break the deadlock was REJECTED by consortium during crucial Owners and Directors Test
- Newcastle's £300m proposed takeover bid dramatically fell through last month
- Sportsmail can reveal it collapsed due to a dispute over who would own the club
- Premier League wished to make plain the link between club and Saudi Arabia
- Offer to place the issue in arbitration was rejected before the buyers pulled out
By MARTIN SAMUEL FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:44, 13 August 2020
Newcastle United’s takeover collapsed in a stalemate over whether the Saudi Arabian state would be in control of the club after the deal went through, Sportsmail can reveal.
A petition approaching 108,000 signatures has now been raised, calling on the Premier League to explain their reasons for delaying the takeover, after Mike Ashley accepted a £300million offer from a consortium made up of the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, the Reuben Brothers and Amanda Staveley.
Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, has been personally targeted, with his home address circulated on online fan forums.
The dispute concerned the completion of a key Premier League form in the owners and directors test regarding club control and ownership — and the 80 per cent stake in the club that would reside with Saudi Arabia.
The Premier League wished to make plain the link between the Saudi Arabian state and Newcastle, but met resistance. An offer to place the issue in arbitration to break the deadlock was also rebuffed before the consortium announced it was pulling out. The Premier League have never rejected the Newcastle takeover.
The lengthy legal dispute over state ownership explains why the process dragged on for months, with the Premier League reluctant to make a definitive ruling.
What seemed like inertia on the Premier League’s part was in fact an impasse, with the League refusing to recognise the Saudi Arabia PIF as different to or independent from the state, given that its chairman, Mohammed bin Salman, is also the de facto head of Saudi Arabia.
Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of the PIF, was to be the principal Saudi representative on the Newcastle board, but the Premier League were unhappy the direct link to state governance was not being made clear. This sparked fears the owners and directors test would not be passed. It was at that point arbitration was suggested with the League seeking an independent ruling on who would own Newcastle.
If an arbitrator had ruled in Newcastle’s favour, the Saudis would have been required to go ahead with owner registration. This would have given the League the right to call Newcastle’s ownership to account over TV piracy by network beoutQ.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
As is the want of the Mail these days they split the story into multiple parts - this again from MArtin Samuel as to why the Premier League is much more stringent - does it add up for you?
Ali al-Faraj's reign at Portsmouth left the Premier League with scars over transparency of ownership... it was the Saudi-consortium's failure to answer one easy question that saw their £300m Newcastle deal die
- Newcastle's takeover failed because it wasn't clear who would be in charge
- Ali al-Faraj' stint at Portsmouth made the Premier League more stringent
- Richard Masters is taking the heat, but it collapsed due to lack of transparency
By MARTIN SAMUEL - SPORT FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:30, 13 August 2020
Ali al-Faraj scuppered the deal to buy Newcastle. Well, not him personally. Maybe not him at all. That’s the point. Nobody quite knew. Al-Faraj, a Saudi Arabian, owned Portsmouth for roughly four months between October 2009 and February 2010, or maybe he didn’t. Either way, the Premier League determined: never again.
Not never again for Saudi Arabians. Never again without transparency.
The Premier League struggled to get to the bottom of Portsmouth’s ownership structure, as the club slipped further towards financial collapse. That is why the owners and directors test became more stringent.
It is not, as some seem to think, an assessment of whether Amnesty International think you are a nice bloke. It is whether you have the money, short-term, to run a football club — no governing body can seek to guarantee long-term fiscal buoyancy — and whether the listed owners are personally accountable.
Portsmouth left scars that haven’t quite healed. Every time the Premier League are accused of poor governance, Portsmouth is the club that is cited.
And the Newcastle takeover did not stall because the Premier League thought the buyers were scoundrels. It was satisfied about the money. It had no issues with personnel. But there were compliance issues that raked up some old ground.
Who, exactly, is in charge of this football club? Can you put it down on this piece of paper? Are we satisfied with this answer?
Potential reputational damage, broadcast piracy, these subjects were swirling in the background and no doubt became part of a wider discussion, too. Yet the bottom line was less complicated. The consortium felt they had answered all the questions over club ownership structure, the Premier League disagreed.
They suggested arbitration, the consortium declined. And then they pulled out.
Al-Faraj bought 90 per cent of Portsmouth from Dr Sulaiman al-Fahim, who had owned it for a mighty 42 days, with money it now transpires was stolen from his wife.
In 2018, Al-Fahim was sentenced to five years imprisonment, in his absence, for forgery, using forged documents and aiding and abetting.
Enter Al-Faraj, whose reign was slightly longer but no less troubled. Players went unpaid, Avram Grant was appointed manager and the new owner never set foot inside the club.
Huge loans were taken out and secured against Fratton Park, future television revenue and Al-Faraj’s stake. When repayments were not made, the club became the property of the loan supplier Balram Chainrai. We’ll have to move on from what happened next to Portsmouth, because there really isn’t the room.
What can be said is Al-Faraj’s stewardship of the club was shrouded in such mystery he became known as Al Mirage within Premier League headquarters. Dr Hafez al-Medlej, chairman of the Saudi Professional League Commission, claimed never to have heard of him. For three days after the takeover, no picture appeared in a Saudi newspaper. When an interview was finally published, Portsmouth claimed it had been invented. The newspaper responded Al-Faraj had authorised his brother, Ahmed, to speak on his behalf.
Years later, puzzles remain. Was it his money? Did he have any money? Was he a front? The same questions that continue to rage around clubs such as Bury and Charlton were raised over Portsmouth more than a decade ago.
Different ones are being asked of Newcastle now. A petition of 108,000 names, and rising, demands explanations from the Premier League over delays that contributed to the withdrawal.
At first, the reason behind the collapse seems quite clear: piracy. Saudi Arabia wished to be a member of a club, while at the same time looting its assets.
At the front, they would be steering the project at Newcastle, shaking hands with their fellow Premier League shareholders. At the back, they would be waging a war against beIn Sports, owned by Qatar, and official rights holders for the Middle East and North Africa. They would be pirating feeds and broadcasting illegally. How could the Premier League welcome an owner with those connections?
And it is true after considering the Newcastle deal, the Premier League regarded the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund — which was 80 per cent of the consortium — as part of the Saudi state.
It was not a leftfield or controversial conclusion, because everybody else did, too. Yet it was important given that the World Trade Organisation ruled the pirate broadcaster beoutQ was ‘operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia’ and the Saudi state had breached intellectual property rights by failing to tackle piracy. Saudi Arabia had also repeatedly blocked the League taking legal action against the pirate broadcaster illegally streaming matches.
The Premier League supplied evidence to the WTO directly detailing Saudi piracy and chief executive Richard Masters named Saudi Arabia to Parliament when discussing the protection of sports rights. So how could a Saudi-owned club be welcomed to the Premier League’s table?
Yet that isn’t the whole picture. In many ways, it would be advantageous for the Premier League to be in business with Saudi Arabia. If the piracy issue remained, they could go through the front door and apply pressure. Equally, if it was not dealt with and beIn Sports pulled out or demanded rights money back, this would directly impact on Newcastle’s finances. The Saudis would have skin in the game.
And once inside, the old adage about tents and the direction of micturition would apply.
Except when the Premier League sought to engage their newest owners, it got complex. It is, apparently, very plain who owns and runs Manchester City. Rival clubs do not like sovereign wealth clubs because they are financially strong and hard to beat. Yet City’s structure satisfied all ownership criteria. Newcastle’s did not.
And the consortium must have been aware of this because that was the reason the takeover dragged on for months: the legal conversations, the clarifications, the call and response.
So when the buyers revert to a default position of whipping up Newcastle’s support through the media, when it demands answers of the Premier League — why so coy? It was even suggested this week that Mike Ashley would sue the League for the takeover’s collapse. Why would he do that when, in all likelihood, he will have to work with these people for the foreseeable future?
One imagines he knows why the deal floundered, and the consortium will, too. They will certainly know what the Premier League was asking, and the possible ways forward from there. Yet they let Masters take the heat and play dumb around the petitioners.
It’s a very simple question: who owns Newcastle? Nobody should need months to answer that.
Ali al-Faraj's reign at Portsmouth left the Premier League with scars over transparency of ownership... it was the Saudi-consortium's failure to answer one easy question that saw their £300m Newcastle deal die
- Newcastle's takeover failed because it wasn't clear who would be in charge
- Ali al-Faraj' stint at Portsmouth made the Premier League more stringent
- Richard Masters is taking the heat, but it collapsed due to lack of transparency
By MARTIN SAMUEL - SPORT FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:30, 13 August 2020
Ali al-Faraj scuppered the deal to buy Newcastle. Well, not him personally. Maybe not him at all. That’s the point. Nobody quite knew. Al-Faraj, a Saudi Arabian, owned Portsmouth for roughly four months between October 2009 and February 2010, or maybe he didn’t. Either way, the Premier League determined: never again.
Not never again for Saudi Arabians. Never again without transparency.
The Premier League struggled to get to the bottom of Portsmouth’s ownership structure, as the club slipped further towards financial collapse. That is why the owners and directors test became more stringent.
It is not, as some seem to think, an assessment of whether Amnesty International think you are a nice bloke. It is whether you have the money, short-term, to run a football club — no governing body can seek to guarantee long-term fiscal buoyancy — and whether the listed owners are personally accountable.
Portsmouth left scars that haven’t quite healed. Every time the Premier League are accused of poor governance, Portsmouth is the club that is cited.
And the Newcastle takeover did not stall because the Premier League thought the buyers were scoundrels. It was satisfied about the money. It had no issues with personnel. But there were compliance issues that raked up some old ground.
Who, exactly, is in charge of this football club? Can you put it down on this piece of paper? Are we satisfied with this answer?
Potential reputational damage, broadcast piracy, these subjects were swirling in the background and no doubt became part of a wider discussion, too. Yet the bottom line was less complicated. The consortium felt they had answered all the questions over club ownership structure, the Premier League disagreed.
They suggested arbitration, the consortium declined. And then they pulled out.
Al-Faraj bought 90 per cent of Portsmouth from Dr Sulaiman al-Fahim, who had owned it for a mighty 42 days, with money it now transpires was stolen from his wife.
In 2018, Al-Fahim was sentenced to five years imprisonment, in his absence, for forgery, using forged documents and aiding and abetting.
Enter Al-Faraj, whose reign was slightly longer but no less troubled. Players went unpaid, Avram Grant was appointed manager and the new owner never set foot inside the club.
Huge loans were taken out and secured against Fratton Park, future television revenue and Al-Faraj’s stake. When repayments were not made, the club became the property of the loan supplier Balram Chainrai. We’ll have to move on from what happened next to Portsmouth, because there really isn’t the room.
What can be said is Al-Faraj’s stewardship of the club was shrouded in such mystery he became known as Al Mirage within Premier League headquarters. Dr Hafez al-Medlej, chairman of the Saudi Professional League Commission, claimed never to have heard of him. For three days after the takeover, no picture appeared in a Saudi newspaper. When an interview was finally published, Portsmouth claimed it had been invented. The newspaper responded Al-Faraj had authorised his brother, Ahmed, to speak on his behalf.
Years later, puzzles remain. Was it his money? Did he have any money? Was he a front? The same questions that continue to rage around clubs such as Bury and Charlton were raised over Portsmouth more than a decade ago.
Different ones are being asked of Newcastle now. A petition of 108,000 names, and rising, demands explanations from the Premier League over delays that contributed to the withdrawal.
At first, the reason behind the collapse seems quite clear: piracy. Saudi Arabia wished to be a member of a club, while at the same time looting its assets.
At the front, they would be steering the project at Newcastle, shaking hands with their fellow Premier League shareholders. At the back, they would be waging a war against beIn Sports, owned by Qatar, and official rights holders for the Middle East and North Africa. They would be pirating feeds and broadcasting illegally. How could the Premier League welcome an owner with those connections?
And it is true after considering the Newcastle deal, the Premier League regarded the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund — which was 80 per cent of the consortium — as part of the Saudi state.
It was not a leftfield or controversial conclusion, because everybody else did, too. Yet it was important given that the World Trade Organisation ruled the pirate broadcaster beoutQ was ‘operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia’ and the Saudi state had breached intellectual property rights by failing to tackle piracy. Saudi Arabia had also repeatedly blocked the League taking legal action against the pirate broadcaster illegally streaming matches.
The Premier League supplied evidence to the WTO directly detailing Saudi piracy and chief executive Richard Masters named Saudi Arabia to Parliament when discussing the protection of sports rights. So how could a Saudi-owned club be welcomed to the Premier League’s table?
Yet that isn’t the whole picture. In many ways, it would be advantageous for the Premier League to be in business with Saudi Arabia. If the piracy issue remained, they could go through the front door and apply pressure. Equally, if it was not dealt with and beIn Sports pulled out or demanded rights money back, this would directly impact on Newcastle’s finances. The Saudis would have skin in the game.
And once inside, the old adage about tents and the direction of micturition would apply.
Except when the Premier League sought to engage their newest owners, it got complex. It is, apparently, very plain who owns and runs Manchester City. Rival clubs do not like sovereign wealth clubs because they are financially strong and hard to beat. Yet City’s structure satisfied all ownership criteria. Newcastle’s did not.
And the consortium must have been aware of this because that was the reason the takeover dragged on for months: the legal conversations, the clarifications, the call and response.
So when the buyers revert to a default position of whipping up Newcastle’s support through the media, when it demands answers of the Premier League — why so coy? It was even suggested this week that Mike Ashley would sue the League for the takeover’s collapse. Why would he do that when, in all likelihood, he will have to work with these people for the foreseeable future?
One imagines he knows why the deal floundered, and the consortium will, too. They will certainly know what the Premier League was asking, and the possible ways forward from there. Yet they let Masters take the heat and play dumb around the petitioners.
It’s a very simple question: who owns Newcastle? Nobody should need months to answer that.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
More discontent for West Ham fans and their club's board - this time over season ticket renewals - I am sure this will not be an isolated case - from the Telegraph
West Ham owners urged to rethink season ticket renewal policy
MATT LAW AUGUST 13, 2020
West Ham United co-owners David Sullivan and David Gold, together with vice-chairman Karren Brady, have been urged to rethink the club’s season ticket renewal policy and the handling of their London Stadium reconfiguration.
Sullivan, Gold and Brady were the subject of fan protests before the coronavirus lockdown and the behind-closed-doors restart during which West Ham narrowly escaped relegation from the Premier League.
The absence of fans and social distancing rules spared the West Ham board of further protests during the final months of the season and the club believe positive dialogue has taken place between themselves and supporter groups, including those who organised and supported the demonstrations.
But questions have been raised over West Ham’s season ticket renewal process for 2020/21 at a time when it is still not known when fans will be allowed back into stadiums.
Fans have been given three options, two of which involve them paying for the entirety of their season ticket up front and receiving funds on a match-by-match basis for the games they are not allowed to attend, in return for being entered into ballots for any reduced capacity games. The third option allows supporters to pay 30 per cent of their season ticket up front, but only allows them into a ballot for seats when 70 per cent or more of the stadium is reopened to supporters.
'The heart, the soul and the culture of this club has been stolen' – How disgruntled West Ham fans are recapturing the spirit of Upton Park
West Ham’s London rivals Tottenham Hotspur allowed fans to renew their season tickets and enter a ballot for tickets when reduced crowds are let back in by making a payment of 20 per cent of the full price before August 7.
West Ham initially placed an August 28 deadline for fans to decide whether or not to renew their season tickets, but consideration is already being given to extending that date. The club insist they are happy to answer all questions on the process and are yet to announce their full plans for supporters who are shielding.
The West Ham United Independent Supporters Association and Hammers United (WHUISA) were part of the talks regarding the club’s renewal process, but both groups believe a number of their concerns and suggestions have not been addressed.
A statement from the WHUISA read: “WHUISA is disheartened with how the season ticket renewal process has been carried out to date and question how reflective of current circumstances, both health-wise and financially, the decisions made, to date, have been.
“We feel how those with specific health needs, those shielding, older supporters and those who are facing financial challenges need to be further addressed.
“Whilst WHUISA has been assured other options are being considered we have been contacted by many members who are confused, aware the final date for renewal is coming up and are still unsure or unclear of their options, many are feeling panicked and pressured into making a decision when the future around supporters returning to games is unclear.”
Sports Briefing
West Ham are moving two stands closer to the pitch in time for next season as part of London Stadium reconfiguration plans, but the club have been accused of moving supporters’ seats without consultation.
The WHUISU statement added: “The whole process around season ticket renewal combined with those affected by the reconfiguration needs to be urgently addressed.”
Hammers United, the group that organised the protests against Sullivan, Gold and Brady, released their own statement that said: “We find the clubs approach to season ticket renewal in the current climate extremely disappointing.
“We are trying to work with the club in an effort to improve things, but our tabled suggestions focused on improving communication on this and other matters, urging the club to consider its social responsibility as well as its commercial objectives and to make specific provision for our financially challenged and older supporters are yet to be implemented.
“We’re advised work continues behind the scenes and these proposals and others are under consideration, but our members want answers now and feel pressured without them, believing they have no option but to make a a financial commitment, in many cases having to borrow money to fulfil it, without anybody really knowing what the future actually holds.
“All this amid another debacle regarding the new seating-plan-to-increase- capacity that has seen friends and families that have been watching West Ham together, often for decades, split up all over the stand.
“This is no way to treat loyal, time served fans, who season in season out financially and emotionally support the team. It makes the club look detached from its supporters and behind the times, which of course leads to protest. They could and should be doing a lot better here.”
West Ham owners urged to rethink season ticket renewal policy
MATT LAW AUGUST 13, 2020
West Ham United co-owners David Sullivan and David Gold, together with vice-chairman Karren Brady, have been urged to rethink the club’s season ticket renewal policy and the handling of their London Stadium reconfiguration.
Sullivan, Gold and Brady were the subject of fan protests before the coronavirus lockdown and the behind-closed-doors restart during which West Ham narrowly escaped relegation from the Premier League.
The absence of fans and social distancing rules spared the West Ham board of further protests during the final months of the season and the club believe positive dialogue has taken place between themselves and supporter groups, including those who organised and supported the demonstrations.
But questions have been raised over West Ham’s season ticket renewal process for 2020/21 at a time when it is still not known when fans will be allowed back into stadiums.
Fans have been given three options, two of which involve them paying for the entirety of their season ticket up front and receiving funds on a match-by-match basis for the games they are not allowed to attend, in return for being entered into ballots for any reduced capacity games. The third option allows supporters to pay 30 per cent of their season ticket up front, but only allows them into a ballot for seats when 70 per cent or more of the stadium is reopened to supporters.
'The heart, the soul and the culture of this club has been stolen' – How disgruntled West Ham fans are recapturing the spirit of Upton Park
West Ham’s London rivals Tottenham Hotspur allowed fans to renew their season tickets and enter a ballot for tickets when reduced crowds are let back in by making a payment of 20 per cent of the full price before August 7.
West Ham initially placed an August 28 deadline for fans to decide whether or not to renew their season tickets, but consideration is already being given to extending that date. The club insist they are happy to answer all questions on the process and are yet to announce their full plans for supporters who are shielding.
The West Ham United Independent Supporters Association and Hammers United (WHUISA) were part of the talks regarding the club’s renewal process, but both groups believe a number of their concerns and suggestions have not been addressed.
A statement from the WHUISA read: “WHUISA is disheartened with how the season ticket renewal process has been carried out to date and question how reflective of current circumstances, both health-wise and financially, the decisions made, to date, have been.
“We feel how those with specific health needs, those shielding, older supporters and those who are facing financial challenges need to be further addressed.
“Whilst WHUISA has been assured other options are being considered we have been contacted by many members who are confused, aware the final date for renewal is coming up and are still unsure or unclear of their options, many are feeling panicked and pressured into making a decision when the future around supporters returning to games is unclear.”
Sports Briefing
West Ham are moving two stands closer to the pitch in time for next season as part of London Stadium reconfiguration plans, but the club have been accused of moving supporters’ seats without consultation.
The WHUISU statement added: “The whole process around season ticket renewal combined with those affected by the reconfiguration needs to be urgently addressed.”
Hammers United, the group that organised the protests against Sullivan, Gold and Brady, released their own statement that said: “We find the clubs approach to season ticket renewal in the current climate extremely disappointing.
“We are trying to work with the club in an effort to improve things, but our tabled suggestions focused on improving communication on this and other matters, urging the club to consider its social responsibility as well as its commercial objectives and to make specific provision for our financially challenged and older supporters are yet to be implemented.
“We’re advised work continues behind the scenes and these proposals and others are under consideration, but our members want answers now and feel pressured without them, believing they have no option but to make a a financial commitment, in many cases having to borrow money to fulfil it, without anybody really knowing what the future actually holds.
“All this amid another debacle regarding the new seating-plan-to-increase- capacity that has seen friends and families that have been watching West Ham together, often for decades, split up all over the stand.
“This is no way to treat loyal, time served fans, who season in season out financially and emotionally support the team. It makes the club look detached from its supporters and behind the times, which of course leads to protest. They could and should be doing a lot better here.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have posted about the use of facial recognition a few times on this thread (and others) here is some positive news on the matter from the Football Supporters Association
https://twitter.com/WeAreTheFSA/status/ ... 6912719875
https://twitter.com/WeAreTheFSA/status/ ... 6912719875
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Manchester United have finally rid themselves of their Sanchez problem - Real Madrid cannot find anyone to rid them of Bale's Euro 600k gross weekly wage, Arsenal cannot rid themselves of Ozil's £350k gross weekly wage now Juventus are struggling to find someone to pay CR7's net Euro 23m per year wage (lets forget the Euro 100m transfer fee to recoup)
https://twitter.com/5liveSport/status/1 ... 8276662272
- when is the game going to learn - Arsenal (readying themselves to make 55 people redundant) apparently are not as the have reportedly agreed to sign 32 year old Willian on a 3 year deal worth a reported £220k per week with signing on fee
Willian's Millions! Arsenal to pay 32-year-old former Chelsea star an astonishing £220,000-a-week once he completes free transfer amid growing anger following club's proposals to make 55 members of staff redundant
- Willian is set to complete his free transfer move to Arsenal t- his weekend
- Sportsmail can revealed that a deal in principle has been in place for some time
- The 32-year-old will earn a staggering £220,000-a-week on a three-year deal
By MIKE KEEGAN AND SAMI MOKBEL FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 07:38, 14 August 2020
Willian will earn an astonishing £220,000 a week at Arsenal after he completes his free transfer from Chelsea, with the contract expected to be signed off by Sunday.
Sportsmail can reveal a deal in principle has been agreed for some time and the 32-year-old Brazilian will be rewarded handsomely.
Willian's basic weekly salary will be lower than at Chelsea, but once a huge signing-on fee is factored in — along with loyalty payments and other bonuses throughout the three-year contract's duration — the staggering mark will be hit.
The vast sums involved raise questions after Arsenal's announcement last week that they are proposing to make 55 members of staff redundant.
Insiders say Willian's unveiling was put back because of the 'poor optics' if it had followed hot on the heels of the job-cuts statement. Arsenal deny that is the case.
Nevertheless, to commit to spending what could end up being around £35million on a veteran player shortly after the redundancy proposal is bound to go down badly. The deal is also set to feature an option for a fourth year.
Sources added that only an unexpected turn of events would stop the deal being concluded this weekend, meaning Willian — who won the Premier League twice in a glittering Chelsea spell — can shortly start training with his Arsenal team-mates ahead of the new campaign, which starts on September 12.
'He would have got nowhere near that money at Chelsea,' a source explained.
'The signing-on fee reflects that it is a free transfer and if he sees out the duration it's a great deal for him.'
Willian's move was confirmed by agent Kia Joorabchian who said the winger's future would be announced soon.
Speaking to talkSPORT, Joorabchian said a deal for Willian would be wrapped up but refused to say where he would end up.
'He is a free player,' Joorabchian said. 'He had a fantastic seven years at Chelsea, he's been under various managers, he's won multiple trophies and he has a fantastic relationship with Frank [Lampard], he respected him a lot.
'But I think that cycle had come to a moment where it's a good moment to leave.
'At the moment, just for now I can't say where he's going to go, for sure Arsenal are one of the contenders. But it won't be long before we announce it. We know where he's going, so it won't be long.'
The 32-year-old confirmed his departure from Chelsea earlier this week, with an open letter to Blues fans.
https://twitter.com/5liveSport/status/1 ... 8276662272
- when is the game going to learn - Arsenal (readying themselves to make 55 people redundant) apparently are not as the have reportedly agreed to sign 32 year old Willian on a 3 year deal worth a reported £220k per week with signing on fee
Willian's Millions! Arsenal to pay 32-year-old former Chelsea star an astonishing £220,000-a-week once he completes free transfer amid growing anger following club's proposals to make 55 members of staff redundant
- Willian is set to complete his free transfer move to Arsenal t- his weekend
- Sportsmail can revealed that a deal in principle has been in place for some time
- The 32-year-old will earn a staggering £220,000-a-week on a three-year deal
By MIKE KEEGAN AND SAMI MOKBEL FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 07:38, 14 August 2020
Willian will earn an astonishing £220,000 a week at Arsenal after he completes his free transfer from Chelsea, with the contract expected to be signed off by Sunday.
Sportsmail can reveal a deal in principle has been agreed for some time and the 32-year-old Brazilian will be rewarded handsomely.
Willian's basic weekly salary will be lower than at Chelsea, but once a huge signing-on fee is factored in — along with loyalty payments and other bonuses throughout the three-year contract's duration — the staggering mark will be hit.
The vast sums involved raise questions after Arsenal's announcement last week that they are proposing to make 55 members of staff redundant.
Insiders say Willian's unveiling was put back because of the 'poor optics' if it had followed hot on the heels of the job-cuts statement. Arsenal deny that is the case.
Nevertheless, to commit to spending what could end up being around £35million on a veteran player shortly after the redundancy proposal is bound to go down badly. The deal is also set to feature an option for a fourth year.
Sources added that only an unexpected turn of events would stop the deal being concluded this weekend, meaning Willian — who won the Premier League twice in a glittering Chelsea spell — can shortly start training with his Arsenal team-mates ahead of the new campaign, which starts on September 12.
'He would have got nowhere near that money at Chelsea,' a source explained.
'The signing-on fee reflects that it is a free transfer and if he sees out the duration it's a great deal for him.'
Willian's move was confirmed by agent Kia Joorabchian who said the winger's future would be announced soon.
Speaking to talkSPORT, Joorabchian said a deal for Willian would be wrapped up but refused to say where he would end up.
'He is a free player,' Joorabchian said. 'He had a fantastic seven years at Chelsea, he's been under various managers, he's won multiple trophies and he has a fantastic relationship with Frank [Lampard], he respected him a lot.
'But I think that cycle had come to a moment where it's a good moment to leave.
'At the moment, just for now I can't say where he's going to go, for sure Arsenal are one of the contenders. But it won't be long before we announce it. We know where he's going, so it won't be long.'
The 32-year-old confirmed his departure from Chelsea earlier this week, with an open letter to Blues fans.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
An update on the long standing saga of the missing millions loaned to Northampton Town to redevelop a stand - wife of the central figure in the case - is being sued to recover monies
https://twitter.com/mattcprecey/status/ ... 1712974850
https://twitter.com/mattcprecey/status/ ... 1712974850
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Fantastic piece of statistical data here from Richard Jolly - Stoke City the super clubs academy 
https://twitter.com/RichJolly/status/12 ... 1139365888
https://twitter.com/RichJolly/status/12 ... 1139365888
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Remember FIFA's shenanigans (normalisation - i.e. a FIFA takeover) in Trinidad and Tobago when Gianni Infantino's favoured candidate lost the election to chair the local FA - well FIFA have just been kicked in the proverbial's by a court there. from Wired868.com
Justice Gobin: ‘Fifa could not presume to be above the law’! Infantino-led body accused of ‘thumbing nose’ at fair play in TTFA attack
Lasana Liburd Thursday 13 August 2020
Madame Justice Carol Gobin handed down a comprehensive defeat to global football body, Fifa, in the Port of Spain High Court today, in a decision that is likely to be read closely across the planet.
The TTFA was represented legally by Dr Emir Crowne, Matthew Gayle, Jason Jones and Crystal Paul of the New City Chambers. Fifa was represented by attorneys Christopher Hamel-Smith SC, Jonathan Walker and Cherie Gopie from M Hamel-Smith and Co.
On 17 March, the Bureau of the Fifa Council—headed by Fifa president Gianni Infantino—ordered a normalisation committee in Trinidad and Tobago and declared that Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) president William Wallace, vice-presidents Clynt Taylor, Susan Joseph-Warrick and Sam Phillip, as well as its board of directors had been immediately replaced.
Wallace and his vice-presidents have resisted the ruling in the local High Court. However, Fifa urged the High Court to accede to arbitration clauses in the constitution of both football bodies and instead send the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), or dismiss the TTFA’s case outright.
Justice Gobin did neither. Instead, she ruled that Fifa’s conduct in its implementation of the normalisation committee was a violation of its statutes while its behaviour in relation to the TTFA rendered the arbitration clause ‘inoperable’.
Fifa secretary general Fatma Samoura said repeatedly that the governing body does not recognise Wallace and his vice-presidents as the representatives of the TTFA and only considers normalisation committee chairman Robert Hadad as the head of the local game.
How then, Justice Gobin asked in her 24-page ruling, can Fifa logically recognise Wallace’s authority before the CAS?
“There is an inherent contradiction in the Fifa’s purported appointment of a normalisation committee, the purpose of which has been to usurp the powers and functions of the executive of the TTFA on the one hand,” stated the High Court judge, “and its insistence on holding the TTFA to the arbitration agreement on the other. The Claimant properly asks the question: ‘whom does FIFA hold to that agreement’.
“In other words, if Fifa disputes the authority of Mr Wallace and others to act on behalf of TTFA, and TTFA is under the control of the normalisation committee—how does it reconcile that with its insistence that these very persons who have no authority to file these court [documents] should commence arbitration proceedings in Switzerland?
“The arbitration process cannot be triggered if there is a dispute as to the capacity of one of the parties to invoke the process and to bind TTFA to any outcome.
“[…] By its challenge to the authority of persons to bring this action, in which proceedings were signed by the President, Mr Wallace and the board of directors named in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitration was rendered inoperable.”
The High Court further ruled that Fifa had ‘not demonstrated that it is ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration’.
Wallace initially sought to defend his position at the CAS, only to withdraw citing bias from the Swiss-based arbitration body. Justice Gobin was not satisfied with Fifa’s behaviour at the CAS either.
The judge pointed to Fifa’s refusal to pay its share of arbitration fees upfront as well as the CAS’ decision to allow the governing body an extension to file its answer until after the TTFA paid fees for both parties.
“In its interpretation and application of the rules, the [CAS] court office effectively denied access to the prescribed method of achieving dispute resolution to the undeniably weaker of the parties,” stated Justice Gobin. “Fifa was at all times aware of the dire state of the TTFA’s finances, which predated the installation of the new Board of Directors in office in November 2019.
“Rules which were intended to level the playing field, in the words of the Privy Council allowed ‘the strong to push the weak to the wall’ (Janet Boustany v George Pigott Co, Antigua and Barbuda [1993] UKPC).
“[…] In this case, not only has Fifa unequivocally refused to comply with the CAS 64.2 rule, thumbing its nose at its obligations to pay under the agreement, it further paralysed the arbitral process by obtaining an extension of time to answer the case until after TTFA paid its (Fifa’s) costs.
“This together with the refusal to recognise the [TTFA] Board of Directors was sufficient to establish a wider pattern of repudiatory conduct and in the circumstances of this case I find that the refusal to pay the advance costs rendered the arbitration inoperable.
“The stay of proceedings would not have been granted in the circumstances.”
Fifa’s attorneys had argued that, although the TTFA’s Constitution did not expressly grant power to the world governing body to override its affairs, this was irrelevant since the local football body agreed to conduct its affairs in accordance with Fifa mandates. As such, they argued that Fifa’s Statutes trumped the TTFA’s Constitution.
However, Justice Gobin pointed to article 19 of the Fifa Statutes:
- Each member association shall manage its affairs independently and without undue influence from third parties.
- A member association’s bodies shall be either elected or appointed in that association. A member association’s statutes shall provide for a democratic procedure that guarantees the complete independence of the election or appointment.
- Any member association’s bodies that have not been elected or appointed in compliance with the provisions of par 2, even on an interim basis, shall not be recognised by FIFA.
- Decisions passed by bodies that have not been elected or appointed in compliance with par 2 shall not be recognised by Fifa.
“Fifa may yet have to justify its purported assumption of extraordinary power to control the day to day affairs of TTFA,” stated Justice Gobin, “including authority to review and amend its statutes and to organise and conduct elections of a new TTFA Executive Committee for a four-year mandate.
“This appears to be in breach of FIFA Statute 19.2.”
And, crucially, Justice Gobin ruled that Fifa had no right to deprive its member associations of the right to seek determination from its local courts.
“Had Parliament intended to enact Fifa Statutes so as to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and to effectively deprive the TTFA of access to the courts of this country, it would have had to do so expressly in clear and unambiguous terms,” stated the High Court. “[…] The dispute in this case falls under Article 67 of TTFA’s Constitution under which TTFA agreed to subscribe to the exclusive jurisdiction of CAS. A statutory corporation which is empowered to make rules for its operations goes too far when it makes rules or adopt rules which foreclose access to the courts of the country.
“Moreover it is outwith the jurisdiction of an entity incorporated under our legislation to agree to submit to foreign law as Fifa Statutes prescribe… Fifa could not presume to be above the law.”
Justice Gobin further stated that Fifa’s attempted ‘ouster clause’ for local courts was insufficient to deny its application by member associations. She pointed to Lord Reid’s ruling in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission HL [1969] 2 AC 147, which said:
“It is a well-established principle that a provision ousting the ordinary jurisdiction of the court must be construed strictly, meaning I think, that if such a provision is reasonably capable of having two meanings, that meaning shall be taken which preserve the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts.”
A key point by Fifa is that the CAS is the best venue to determine whether the governing body was justified in intervening in the TTFA’s internal affairs.
However, Justice Gobin did not agree that this was a matter of justifying Fifa intervention at all. For her, it was a case of if Fifa had the right to intervene in the first place, through the implementation of a normalisation committee.
“I do not think that arbitration would be the appropriate forum for the resolution of this dispute,” stated Justice Gobin. “This case goes well beyond TTFA’s alleged governance issues and the justifiability of Fifa’s purported action in appointing the Normalisation Committee. This is about the legitimacy of powers exercised under Article 8.2 of the Fifa Statutes and its consistency with a law passed by legislators in this country.
“This is a matter which falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court of this country. This is not a matter for the Court of Arbitration for Sports.”
Justice Gobin noted Fifa’s threats to take draconian action to the detriment of the local game.
Hamel-Smith told the High Court that Wallace’s use of the local courts ‘renders TTFA susceptible to be suspended from Fifa’s membership—aside from the direct implications for TTFA such as suspension will impact the country of Trinidad and Tobago whose various nationals teams will no longer be allowed to partake in international tournaments and matches. This compromises the careers, livelihood, education and other prospect for players’.
However, Justice Gobin suggested that Fifa would be in violation of its own humanitarian goals if it took such an action against Trinidad and Tobago’s football.
“As for the concerns about irreparable fallout or adverse consequences to TTFA and Trinidad and Tobago, I am encouraged by the lofty objectives identified in Fifa statutes,” stated Justice Gobin, “and particularly articles (3) and (4) of Fifa’s commitment to respecting internationally recognised human rights, non-discrimination of any kind against a country for any reason and its commitment to promoting friendly relations in society for humanitarian objectives all of which are underpinned by an appreciation for the rule of law.
“I do not expect Fifa to walk off the field or to take its ball and go home if after full ventilation of the issues, this court were to confirm the primacy of an Act of the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago over the Fifa Statutes.”
Justice Gobin granted Fifa a 21-day extension to file a defence to the TTFA’s injunction against its normalisation committee. However, Fifa’s application for stay and all other aspects of its application was dismissed.
Fifa was also ordered to ‘pay the claimants costs to be assessed by this court in default of agreement’.
Infantino, according to football sources, vowed, beforehand, to convene the Bureau of the Fifa Council immediately after the High Court decision to consider action against Wallace, his vice-presidents and the TTFA—if he did not get his way.
The Fifa Bureau is its emergency committee and includes Infantino and presidents of its six confederations, including Concacaf.
On Wednesday 19 August, Concacaf will hold its draw for the Qatar 2022 World Cup qualifying schedule. A Fifa suspension over the coming days would automatically rule the Soca Warriors out of the draw.
Infantino’s legal problems are in no way restricted to the TTFA. Two weeks ago, Swiss special prosecutor Stefan Keller initiated a criminal investigation against the Fifa president as result of secret meetings between the football jefe and Switzerland Attorney General Michael Lauber.
Keller, who was appointed on 29 June by the Supervisory Authority for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), found enough evidence to indict Infantino, Lauber and Chief Public Prosecutor Rinaldo Arnold on abuse of public office, breach of official secrecy and assisting offenders—which are article 312, 320 and 305 of the Swiss Criminal Code respectively.
Justice Gobin: ‘Fifa could not presume to be above the law’! Infantino-led body accused of ‘thumbing nose’ at fair play in TTFA attack
Lasana Liburd Thursday 13 August 2020
Madame Justice Carol Gobin handed down a comprehensive defeat to global football body, Fifa, in the Port of Spain High Court today, in a decision that is likely to be read closely across the planet.
The TTFA was represented legally by Dr Emir Crowne, Matthew Gayle, Jason Jones and Crystal Paul of the New City Chambers. Fifa was represented by attorneys Christopher Hamel-Smith SC, Jonathan Walker and Cherie Gopie from M Hamel-Smith and Co.
On 17 March, the Bureau of the Fifa Council—headed by Fifa president Gianni Infantino—ordered a normalisation committee in Trinidad and Tobago and declared that Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) president William Wallace, vice-presidents Clynt Taylor, Susan Joseph-Warrick and Sam Phillip, as well as its board of directors had been immediately replaced.
Wallace and his vice-presidents have resisted the ruling in the local High Court. However, Fifa urged the High Court to accede to arbitration clauses in the constitution of both football bodies and instead send the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), or dismiss the TTFA’s case outright.
Justice Gobin did neither. Instead, she ruled that Fifa’s conduct in its implementation of the normalisation committee was a violation of its statutes while its behaviour in relation to the TTFA rendered the arbitration clause ‘inoperable’.
Fifa secretary general Fatma Samoura said repeatedly that the governing body does not recognise Wallace and his vice-presidents as the representatives of the TTFA and only considers normalisation committee chairman Robert Hadad as the head of the local game.
How then, Justice Gobin asked in her 24-page ruling, can Fifa logically recognise Wallace’s authority before the CAS?
“There is an inherent contradiction in the Fifa’s purported appointment of a normalisation committee, the purpose of which has been to usurp the powers and functions of the executive of the TTFA on the one hand,” stated the High Court judge, “and its insistence on holding the TTFA to the arbitration agreement on the other. The Claimant properly asks the question: ‘whom does FIFA hold to that agreement’.
“In other words, if Fifa disputes the authority of Mr Wallace and others to act on behalf of TTFA, and TTFA is under the control of the normalisation committee—how does it reconcile that with its insistence that these very persons who have no authority to file these court [documents] should commence arbitration proceedings in Switzerland?
“The arbitration process cannot be triggered if there is a dispute as to the capacity of one of the parties to invoke the process and to bind TTFA to any outcome.
“[…] By its challenge to the authority of persons to bring this action, in which proceedings were signed by the President, Mr Wallace and the board of directors named in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitration was rendered inoperable.”
The High Court further ruled that Fifa had ‘not demonstrated that it is ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration’.
Wallace initially sought to defend his position at the CAS, only to withdraw citing bias from the Swiss-based arbitration body. Justice Gobin was not satisfied with Fifa’s behaviour at the CAS either.
The judge pointed to Fifa’s refusal to pay its share of arbitration fees upfront as well as the CAS’ decision to allow the governing body an extension to file its answer until after the TTFA paid fees for both parties.
“In its interpretation and application of the rules, the [CAS] court office effectively denied access to the prescribed method of achieving dispute resolution to the undeniably weaker of the parties,” stated Justice Gobin. “Fifa was at all times aware of the dire state of the TTFA’s finances, which predated the installation of the new Board of Directors in office in November 2019.
“Rules which were intended to level the playing field, in the words of the Privy Council allowed ‘the strong to push the weak to the wall’ (Janet Boustany v George Pigott Co, Antigua and Barbuda [1993] UKPC).
“[…] In this case, not only has Fifa unequivocally refused to comply with the CAS 64.2 rule, thumbing its nose at its obligations to pay under the agreement, it further paralysed the arbitral process by obtaining an extension of time to answer the case until after TTFA paid its (Fifa’s) costs.
“This together with the refusal to recognise the [TTFA] Board of Directors was sufficient to establish a wider pattern of repudiatory conduct and in the circumstances of this case I find that the refusal to pay the advance costs rendered the arbitration inoperable.
“The stay of proceedings would not have been granted in the circumstances.”
Fifa’s attorneys had argued that, although the TTFA’s Constitution did not expressly grant power to the world governing body to override its affairs, this was irrelevant since the local football body agreed to conduct its affairs in accordance with Fifa mandates. As such, they argued that Fifa’s Statutes trumped the TTFA’s Constitution.
However, Justice Gobin pointed to article 19 of the Fifa Statutes:
- Each member association shall manage its affairs independently and without undue influence from third parties.
- A member association’s bodies shall be either elected or appointed in that association. A member association’s statutes shall provide for a democratic procedure that guarantees the complete independence of the election or appointment.
- Any member association’s bodies that have not been elected or appointed in compliance with the provisions of par 2, even on an interim basis, shall not be recognised by FIFA.
- Decisions passed by bodies that have not been elected or appointed in compliance with par 2 shall not be recognised by Fifa.
“Fifa may yet have to justify its purported assumption of extraordinary power to control the day to day affairs of TTFA,” stated Justice Gobin, “including authority to review and amend its statutes and to organise and conduct elections of a new TTFA Executive Committee for a four-year mandate.
“This appears to be in breach of FIFA Statute 19.2.”
And, crucially, Justice Gobin ruled that Fifa had no right to deprive its member associations of the right to seek determination from its local courts.
“Had Parliament intended to enact Fifa Statutes so as to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and to effectively deprive the TTFA of access to the courts of this country, it would have had to do so expressly in clear and unambiguous terms,” stated the High Court. “[…] The dispute in this case falls under Article 67 of TTFA’s Constitution under which TTFA agreed to subscribe to the exclusive jurisdiction of CAS. A statutory corporation which is empowered to make rules for its operations goes too far when it makes rules or adopt rules which foreclose access to the courts of the country.
“Moreover it is outwith the jurisdiction of an entity incorporated under our legislation to agree to submit to foreign law as Fifa Statutes prescribe… Fifa could not presume to be above the law.”
Justice Gobin further stated that Fifa’s attempted ‘ouster clause’ for local courts was insufficient to deny its application by member associations. She pointed to Lord Reid’s ruling in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission HL [1969] 2 AC 147, which said:
“It is a well-established principle that a provision ousting the ordinary jurisdiction of the court must be construed strictly, meaning I think, that if such a provision is reasonably capable of having two meanings, that meaning shall be taken which preserve the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts.”
A key point by Fifa is that the CAS is the best venue to determine whether the governing body was justified in intervening in the TTFA’s internal affairs.
However, Justice Gobin did not agree that this was a matter of justifying Fifa intervention at all. For her, it was a case of if Fifa had the right to intervene in the first place, through the implementation of a normalisation committee.
“I do not think that arbitration would be the appropriate forum for the resolution of this dispute,” stated Justice Gobin. “This case goes well beyond TTFA’s alleged governance issues and the justifiability of Fifa’s purported action in appointing the Normalisation Committee. This is about the legitimacy of powers exercised under Article 8.2 of the Fifa Statutes and its consistency with a law passed by legislators in this country.
“This is a matter which falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court of this country. This is not a matter for the Court of Arbitration for Sports.”
Justice Gobin noted Fifa’s threats to take draconian action to the detriment of the local game.
Hamel-Smith told the High Court that Wallace’s use of the local courts ‘renders TTFA susceptible to be suspended from Fifa’s membership—aside from the direct implications for TTFA such as suspension will impact the country of Trinidad and Tobago whose various nationals teams will no longer be allowed to partake in international tournaments and matches. This compromises the careers, livelihood, education and other prospect for players’.
However, Justice Gobin suggested that Fifa would be in violation of its own humanitarian goals if it took such an action against Trinidad and Tobago’s football.
“As for the concerns about irreparable fallout or adverse consequences to TTFA and Trinidad and Tobago, I am encouraged by the lofty objectives identified in Fifa statutes,” stated Justice Gobin, “and particularly articles (3) and (4) of Fifa’s commitment to respecting internationally recognised human rights, non-discrimination of any kind against a country for any reason and its commitment to promoting friendly relations in society for humanitarian objectives all of which are underpinned by an appreciation for the rule of law.
“I do not expect Fifa to walk off the field or to take its ball and go home if after full ventilation of the issues, this court were to confirm the primacy of an Act of the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago over the Fifa Statutes.”
Justice Gobin granted Fifa a 21-day extension to file a defence to the TTFA’s injunction against its normalisation committee. However, Fifa’s application for stay and all other aspects of its application was dismissed.
Fifa was also ordered to ‘pay the claimants costs to be assessed by this court in default of agreement’.
Infantino, according to football sources, vowed, beforehand, to convene the Bureau of the Fifa Council immediately after the High Court decision to consider action against Wallace, his vice-presidents and the TTFA—if he did not get his way.
The Fifa Bureau is its emergency committee and includes Infantino and presidents of its six confederations, including Concacaf.
On Wednesday 19 August, Concacaf will hold its draw for the Qatar 2022 World Cup qualifying schedule. A Fifa suspension over the coming days would automatically rule the Soca Warriors out of the draw.
Infantino’s legal problems are in no way restricted to the TTFA. Two weeks ago, Swiss special prosecutor Stefan Keller initiated a criminal investigation against the Fifa president as result of secret meetings between the football jefe and Switzerland Attorney General Michael Lauber.
Keller, who was appointed on 29 June by the Supervisory Authority for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), found enough evidence to indict Infantino, Lauber and Chief Public Prosecutor Rinaldo Arnold on abuse of public office, breach of official secrecy and assisting offenders—which are article 312, 320 and 305 of the Swiss Criminal Code respectively.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This is the waiver that fans who attended yesterday's MLS game in Dallas yesterday had to sign
https://twitter.com/jamiefox1/status/12 ... 0344346624
https://twitter.com/jamiefox1/status/12 ... 0344346624
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
the Premier League have responded to a letter from an MP to give some reasons in the proposed Saudi bid
Premier League break silence on Newcastle United takeover in letter to MP
Richard Masters has written to Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah in reply to her letter over the collapsed deal
ByLee RyderChief Newcastle United Writer - 15:21, 14 AUG 2020UPDATED16:26, 14 AUG 2020
Premier League supremo Richard Masters has broken his silence on Newcastle United's takeover collapse - and insisted that the Middle East consortium made a decision to withdraw their bid.
After claims that Amanda Staveley, the Reuben brothers and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund turned down the chance of an arbitration tribunal in the morning papers, Masters has now confirmed that top-flight chiefs were happy to proceed with the owners and directors test.
In a letter to Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah, Masters said: “In June, the Premier League board made a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition, in accordance with the Premier League rules.
“Subsequently, the Premier League then asked each such person or entity to provide the Premier League with additional information, which would then have been used to consider the assessment of any possible disqualifying events.
“In this matter, the consortium disagreed with the Premier League’s determination that one entity would fall within the criteria requiring the provision of this information.
“The Premier League recognised this dispute and offered the consortium the ability to have the matter determined by an independent arbitral tribunal if it wished to challenge the conclusion of the board.
He said: “The owners’ and directors’ test is delegated to and carried out entirely by the Premier League Board. Other member clubs have no role whatsoever in the approval process.”
Masters was also apologetic in some ways for the delay in responding.
He added: "I fully appreciate that the issue of a potential change in the ownership of Newcastle United Football Club (NUFC) is of great importance to you, as the MP for the area and as a fan, as it is to NUFC's entire fanbase, and I would like to deal directly with the questions you raise."
Premier League break silence on Newcastle United takeover in letter to MP
Richard Masters has written to Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah in reply to her letter over the collapsed deal
ByLee RyderChief Newcastle United Writer - 15:21, 14 AUG 2020UPDATED16:26, 14 AUG 2020
Premier League supremo Richard Masters has broken his silence on Newcastle United's takeover collapse - and insisted that the Middle East consortium made a decision to withdraw their bid.
After claims that Amanda Staveley, the Reuben brothers and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund turned down the chance of an arbitration tribunal in the morning papers, Masters has now confirmed that top-flight chiefs were happy to proceed with the owners and directors test.
In a letter to Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah, Masters said: “In June, the Premier League board made a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition, in accordance with the Premier League rules.
“Subsequently, the Premier League then asked each such person or entity to provide the Premier League with additional information, which would then have been used to consider the assessment of any possible disqualifying events.
“In this matter, the consortium disagreed with the Premier League’s determination that one entity would fall within the criteria requiring the provision of this information.
“The Premier League recognised this dispute and offered the consortium the ability to have the matter determined by an independent arbitral tribunal if it wished to challenge the conclusion of the board.
He said: “The owners’ and directors’ test is delegated to and carried out entirely by the Premier League Board. Other member clubs have no role whatsoever in the approval process.”
Masters was also apologetic in some ways for the delay in responding.
He added: "I fully appreciate that the issue of a potential change in the ownership of Newcastle United Football Club (NUFC) is of great importance to you, as the MP for the area and as a fan, as it is to NUFC's entire fanbase, and I would like to deal directly with the questions you raise."
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have been posting about the strange/suspicious nature of Southampton's shirt sponsor since it was announced last summer - it now appears that the sponsor with no business is about to pull out of the deal (we just have to hope that the Sheffield Wednesday £1m per year Taxi Firm sponsor that has no taxis goes the same way) - from the Mail. This is being dressed up as political fallout of the failing relationships between the UK and Chineses government (remember there are links to Southampton ownership being controlled to the Chinese State)
EXCLUSIVE: £15m China shirt crisis hits Southampton with main sponsor LD Sports set to pull the plug on their club-record three-year deal
LD Sports are set to rip up their main sponsorship agreement with Southampton
A source has told the Mail on Sunday that the club are searching for a sponsor
Southampton released their new kit with LD Sports' logo on it last month
A three-year deal was signed last year and club could now miss out on £15m
By ALEX MILLER FOR MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:32, 15 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:32, 15 August 2020
Southampton have been left stunned as Chinese shirt sponsor LD Sports are set to quit the club before the new season - a shock decision that could cost the club £15million.
Club officials have discovered that the sponsor is likely to walk away from their agreement two years early.
The three-year deal, worth a club record £7.5million a year, started last season and was set to run until 2022.
A source close to the deal told the Mail on Sunday: 'Southampton officials are already looking for a new main club sponsor, anticipating the LD Sports decision.'
Sources close to Southampton have admitted there was a break clause in the agreement this summer and that they are working to ensure they are not to be left without a sponsor going into the new season.
It is understood the LD Sports decision has been influenced by the political situation between China and the UK, plus investment concerns due to ongoing uncertainties due to COVID-19.
Blackburn Rovers have also confirmed their partnership with main sponsor - Chinese gambling company 10 BET - has ended.
The Mail on Sunday understands at least one other Premier League with a Chinese sponsor, is facing the same nightmare situation ahead of the new season.
The situation has been made worse for clubs as the football calendar has been condensed this summer due to coronavirus.
Southampton released their new kit last month, with thousands of fans having already snapped up the latest designs, which could be out of date within weeks.
It is understood the club is already planning how to work with fans that have splashed out, once the LD Sports decision is made official.
There are no concerns within Southampton that the LD Sports decision in any way reflects the intentions of owner Jisheng Gao.
But red flags had been raised over the sponsorship deal last summer when Southampton signed an agreement described as 'the most lucrative partnership in the club's history', before LD Sports had even started trading.
LD Sports, described as a sports content, marketing and entertainment platform in China, replaced a previous £6million a year agreement with Virgin Media.
The deal was seen as part of the club's attempt to broaden their appeal in China.
Saints Commercial Director David Thomas said in an official statement last year: 'We are looking forward to using our growing credentials and awareness in China, as well as our content and digital marketing expertise, to help the brand achieve its business objectives over the next three years.'
The shock decision by LD Sports will send alarm bells ringing through other clubs currently in agreements with Chinese sponsors.
It also comes as the Premier League are locked in a legal dispute with their Chinese broadcast partners that could cost clubs hundreds of millions of pounds in lost television income.
Rights holders Suning Holdings have withheld a payment of £160million that was due in March, with the Premier League retaliating by rejecting their offer for a three-year extension to the contract to cover the 2022-25 seasons.
The stand-off has potentially seismic ramifications for club finances as the Chinese TV deal is the most lucrative in the world outside the UK, with Suning agreeing to pay £564m for the current 2019-22 cycle for the right to broadcast Premier League games on their digital channel, PPTV.
Last month China's state television broadcaster relegated the Premier from its main sports channel to one that lures fewer viewers - seen as a sign football was being ensnared in the increasingly fraught relations between Beijing and the UK.
EXCLUSIVE: £15m China shirt crisis hits Southampton with main sponsor LD Sports set to pull the plug on their club-record three-year deal
LD Sports are set to rip up their main sponsorship agreement with Southampton
A source has told the Mail on Sunday that the club are searching for a sponsor
Southampton released their new kit with LD Sports' logo on it last month
A three-year deal was signed last year and club could now miss out on £15m
By ALEX MILLER FOR MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:32, 15 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:32, 15 August 2020
Southampton have been left stunned as Chinese shirt sponsor LD Sports are set to quit the club before the new season - a shock decision that could cost the club £15million.
Club officials have discovered that the sponsor is likely to walk away from their agreement two years early.
The three-year deal, worth a club record £7.5million a year, started last season and was set to run until 2022.
A source close to the deal told the Mail on Sunday: 'Southampton officials are already looking for a new main club sponsor, anticipating the LD Sports decision.'
Sources close to Southampton have admitted there was a break clause in the agreement this summer and that they are working to ensure they are not to be left without a sponsor going into the new season.
It is understood the LD Sports decision has been influenced by the political situation between China and the UK, plus investment concerns due to ongoing uncertainties due to COVID-19.
Blackburn Rovers have also confirmed their partnership with main sponsor - Chinese gambling company 10 BET - has ended.
The Mail on Sunday understands at least one other Premier League with a Chinese sponsor, is facing the same nightmare situation ahead of the new season.
The situation has been made worse for clubs as the football calendar has been condensed this summer due to coronavirus.
Southampton released their new kit last month, with thousands of fans having already snapped up the latest designs, which could be out of date within weeks.
It is understood the club is already planning how to work with fans that have splashed out, once the LD Sports decision is made official.
There are no concerns within Southampton that the LD Sports decision in any way reflects the intentions of owner Jisheng Gao.
But red flags had been raised over the sponsorship deal last summer when Southampton signed an agreement described as 'the most lucrative partnership in the club's history', before LD Sports had even started trading.
LD Sports, described as a sports content, marketing and entertainment platform in China, replaced a previous £6million a year agreement with Virgin Media.
The deal was seen as part of the club's attempt to broaden their appeal in China.
Saints Commercial Director David Thomas said in an official statement last year: 'We are looking forward to using our growing credentials and awareness in China, as well as our content and digital marketing expertise, to help the brand achieve its business objectives over the next three years.'
The shock decision by LD Sports will send alarm bells ringing through other clubs currently in agreements with Chinese sponsors.
It also comes as the Premier League are locked in a legal dispute with their Chinese broadcast partners that could cost clubs hundreds of millions of pounds in lost television income.
Rights holders Suning Holdings have withheld a payment of £160million that was due in March, with the Premier League retaliating by rejecting their offer for a three-year extension to the contract to cover the 2022-25 seasons.
The stand-off has potentially seismic ramifications for club finances as the Chinese TV deal is the most lucrative in the world outside the UK, with Suning agreeing to pay £564m for the current 2019-22 cycle for the right to broadcast Premier League games on their digital channel, PPTV.
Last month China's state television broadcaster relegated the Premier from its main sports channel to one that lures fewer viewers - seen as a sign football was being ensnared in the increasingly fraught relations between Beijing and the UK.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The season long running dispute between West Brom and Barcelona for payment for youth prospect Louie Barry continues (Barcelona sold him to Aston Villa in January for £1m as everyone expected) - this looks a clear cut case and FIFA should be implementing enbargoes on Barcelona until the payment is made.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:17 pmI have mentioned this before - Aston Villa have unveiled their newest signing a 16 year old from Barcelona - price £3m - all seems sound but he left West Brom in the summer for a UEFA fixed price, meaning that fee is virtually all profit - a direct transfer between the two midlands clubs would have meant a much higher fee - whatever the reason's given it is disturbing that a clubs profit in this way especially given the relationship between the player and his new boss at Villa (his old Academy boss at West Brom) oh and Barcelona still haven't paid a penny to West Brom yet for the summer switch
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... Barry.html
https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/fo ... rry-money/
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This article from the Mail is ostensibly about the fright that the unpaid Premier League Rights bill from China is causing, along with the short to medium term impact of Covid, but it actually gives an awful lot of details about where the current rights and their values are -
Could coronavirus - or China - pop Premier League's £9BILLION bubble? Over 3bn people in 188 countries watch its matches... but a broadcast row is brewing that threatens the worldwide TV cash cow
- Nearly every country televises Premier League matches, with one in two people in the world watching
- The value of TV rights for England's top-flight has continued to surge upwards as popularity increases
- A recent TV rights deal with a Scandinavian broadcaster was worth £2bn over six years across four countries
- TV networks in the United States, South-East Asia, the Middle East and Africa pay millions to show the games
- But as legal row erupts over an unpaid bill in China during the coronavirus pandemic, does trouble lie ahead?
By ADAM SHERGOLD FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 20:00, 16 August 2020 | UPDATED: 20:00, 16 August 2020
At the last count, 188 of the 193 member states of the United Nations had Premier League coverage on their television networks.
Only in Afghanistan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Cuba does the self-styled best league in the world suffer from a blackout. And even the North Korean state has started showing some games of late.
The Premier League's own research, from the 2018-19 season, found that 1.35 billion people globally watched live its games and 3.2 billion watched coverage in some form.
So almost every other person on the planet likes to watch Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Co. A good proportion of them are deeply immersed and invested with their own passions and loyalties.
It all helps explain why the Premier League brought in £4.2billion selling international broadcast rights to screen their matches at the latest round of tenders.
Of the overall £9.2bn value of the league's broadcast rights for the seasons between 2019 and 2022, almost half comes from outside the United Kingdom.
The fact this represents a rise from £3.1bn from the 2016-2019 cycle suggests the Premier League's stock continues to push inexorably upwards, breaking into new markets and carrying significant cultural influence.
And this surging popularity abroad has more than amply offset the plateau and slight fall in the value of broadcast rights in the United Kingdom.
The latest tender saw Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon pay £5bn, a decrease on the £5.4bn Sky and BT paid between 2016 and 2019.
'We have every reason to be optimistic about the future of sports rights. I don't think the bubble has burst,' said chief executive Richard Masters earlier this year.
'The domestic rights did go down by a small margin last time around, but off the back of two big leaps.
'International revenue has continued to grow. The Premier League is in growth. I have no reason to believe that it won't continue to be so.'
But then the world changed. For the first time, a pandemic caused the suspension of the Premier League competition for three months.
Although the season was eventually completed - safely and to the broad satisfaction of all 20 teams in terms of sporting integrity - the picture looks very different and potentially far less rosy.
As Sportsmail revealed on Tuesday, the Premier League's rights holders in China, Suning Sports, have withheld a payment of £160million that was due in March.
A legal dispute has ensued with the Premier League retaliating by rejecting Suning's offer to extend their contract by another three years until 2025.
It is believed the problem has resulted primarily from the sporting shutdown caused by coronavirus but there may be a political dimension too amid escalating tensions between the Governments of the UK and China.
The situation could be problematic for the Premier League on various levels.
Firstly, it may cost Premier League clubs a significant chunk of money if it isn't paid at a time when Covid-19 and empty stadiums are already impacting their finances.
Budgets for this summer's transfer window have already been squeezed as a consequence with a number of clubs already announcing job losses amongst their staff.
Secondly, the Premier League will have no desire to become caught up in the political cross-fire between Westminster and Beijing.
Relations have been soured by Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to block Chinese technology giant Huawei's involvement in the UK's new 5G network.
And the Chinese ambassador in London has accused the UK of interfering in China's internal affairs after Johnson's offer of residency for up to three million Hong Kong residents following a security clampdown in the former British colony.
Thirdly, if Suning's decision isn't politically-motivated and has more to do with the hole left in the 2019-20 season by coronavirus, they could set in motion a domino effect of overseas broadcasters doing likewise.
Although the Premier League action did resume in June, broadcasters argued they weren't getting entirely what they were paying for in the absence of crowds and atmospheres that help make the competition what it is.
At one point domestic and overseas broadcasters were reportedly demanding £330m in rebates, with Sky forming a big chunk of that at £170m.
This settlement was agreed in mid-June with the payment deferred until next season to allow clubs some breathing space.
The alarming situation with Suning does shine a light on the enormous deals in place in almost every country in the world to bring coverage of Premier League matches to fans.
The Premier League is able to package up broadcast deals country by country and for flexible durations. Some networks buy the rights and then sub-let them to channels in other countries.
The China deal, which is the Premier League's most lucrative for an individual country outside the UK, was agreed in 2016 and is worth £564m in all for 2019 to 2022.
Games are shown on streaming service PPTV and it was understood to be worth more than 12 times the existing deal of $60m over three years with Super Sport Media Group.
The partnership was launched on the eve of last year's Premier League Asia Trophy in Shanghai with Michael Owen putting in a guest cameo. Whether it will last until 2022 is now in doubt.
But even that deal was put in the shade by the six-year, £2bn agreement earlier this year between the Premier League and Nordic Entertainment Group (NENT) covering Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland from 2022.
This represented the first TV deal put in place for after 2022 and the first sold in Europe on a six-year basis.
NENT were able to outbid long-standing Norwegian rights holder TV2, whose boss Olav T. Sandes making no secret of his disappointment at losing them.
There have been six-year contracts before. American network NBC retained their Premier League rights back in 2015, paying about $1bn (£641m) for the privilege.
That was a big rise from their previous three-year, $250m contract but was seen as representing good value.
'You do the math,' said NBC Sports Group chairman Mark Lazarus. 'That's 2,280 matches over the next six years plus hours of other related content.'
Other money-spinning deals have followed. The BeIN Sports deal covering the Middle East and north Africa is worth £500m a season over three years.
SuperSport pay £168m per season to screen the Premier League in sub-Saharan Africa, while the Canal Plus contract in France is worth around £100m per season.
In other places, an interesting dynamic is at play. In Singapore, for example, Singtel pay £70m per season for Premier League rights but makes £175m per year from its subscribers paying around £35m a month for the live games.
It's led the Premier League to wonder why that subscriber money isn't coming directly to them and Masters spoke about what has been dubbed a 'Premflix' model in the future.
This would allow fans anywhere in the world to log on and purchase streams of the games they wanted to watch at a set price as opposed to subscribing to a TV network for all games.
Masters has spoken about a blend of TV broadcasting and streaming when the next tender comes round from 2022 onward.
The Singapore example is a pertinent one given that the Asia-Pacific region is the most valuable for the Premier League, comprising 32.9 per cent of that £4.2bn bonanza.
Europe comes next but the value of Premier League rights is by no means uniform across the board. Of the 2019-22 deals, 48 per cent of revenue came from just France, Norway and Sweden, according to SportBusiness Media.
Yet we should not assume that the league is bringing in more money in every single country. Values fluctuate, often depending on whether more than one network enters the bidding war.
Japan, India and New Zealand all saw a fall in value while an agreement in the Caribbean with Caribbean Premier League Limited for 2019-22 saw a fall of some 61.5 per cent.
But this remains the exception to the rule for the moment, though there's no telling what impact coronavirus will have especially if fans can't return to stadiums in England amid a second wave.
In April, the streaming service DAZN, which holds the rights for Brazil, Canada, Japan and Spain, asked if they could halt payments until the action resumed.
But the situation with China is a delicate one for the Premier League and one they will hope and pray doesn't lead to their ever-growing bubble being popped.
Could coronavirus - or China - pop Premier League's £9BILLION bubble? Over 3bn people in 188 countries watch its matches... but a broadcast row is brewing that threatens the worldwide TV cash cow
- Nearly every country televises Premier League matches, with one in two people in the world watching
- The value of TV rights for England's top-flight has continued to surge upwards as popularity increases
- A recent TV rights deal with a Scandinavian broadcaster was worth £2bn over six years across four countries
- TV networks in the United States, South-East Asia, the Middle East and Africa pay millions to show the games
- But as legal row erupts over an unpaid bill in China during the coronavirus pandemic, does trouble lie ahead?
By ADAM SHERGOLD FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 20:00, 16 August 2020 | UPDATED: 20:00, 16 August 2020
At the last count, 188 of the 193 member states of the United Nations had Premier League coverage on their television networks.
Only in Afghanistan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Cuba does the self-styled best league in the world suffer from a blackout. And even the North Korean state has started showing some games of late.
The Premier League's own research, from the 2018-19 season, found that 1.35 billion people globally watched live its games and 3.2 billion watched coverage in some form.
So almost every other person on the planet likes to watch Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Co. A good proportion of them are deeply immersed and invested with their own passions and loyalties.
It all helps explain why the Premier League brought in £4.2billion selling international broadcast rights to screen their matches at the latest round of tenders.
Of the overall £9.2bn value of the league's broadcast rights for the seasons between 2019 and 2022, almost half comes from outside the United Kingdom.
The fact this represents a rise from £3.1bn from the 2016-2019 cycle suggests the Premier League's stock continues to push inexorably upwards, breaking into new markets and carrying significant cultural influence.
And this surging popularity abroad has more than amply offset the plateau and slight fall in the value of broadcast rights in the United Kingdom.
The latest tender saw Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon pay £5bn, a decrease on the £5.4bn Sky and BT paid between 2016 and 2019.
'We have every reason to be optimistic about the future of sports rights. I don't think the bubble has burst,' said chief executive Richard Masters earlier this year.
'The domestic rights did go down by a small margin last time around, but off the back of two big leaps.
'International revenue has continued to grow. The Premier League is in growth. I have no reason to believe that it won't continue to be so.'
But then the world changed. For the first time, a pandemic caused the suspension of the Premier League competition for three months.
Although the season was eventually completed - safely and to the broad satisfaction of all 20 teams in terms of sporting integrity - the picture looks very different and potentially far less rosy.
As Sportsmail revealed on Tuesday, the Premier League's rights holders in China, Suning Sports, have withheld a payment of £160million that was due in March.
A legal dispute has ensued with the Premier League retaliating by rejecting Suning's offer to extend their contract by another three years until 2025.
It is believed the problem has resulted primarily from the sporting shutdown caused by coronavirus but there may be a political dimension too amid escalating tensions between the Governments of the UK and China.
The situation could be problematic for the Premier League on various levels.
Firstly, it may cost Premier League clubs a significant chunk of money if it isn't paid at a time when Covid-19 and empty stadiums are already impacting their finances.
Budgets for this summer's transfer window have already been squeezed as a consequence with a number of clubs already announcing job losses amongst their staff.
Secondly, the Premier League will have no desire to become caught up in the political cross-fire between Westminster and Beijing.
Relations have been soured by Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to block Chinese technology giant Huawei's involvement in the UK's new 5G network.
And the Chinese ambassador in London has accused the UK of interfering in China's internal affairs after Johnson's offer of residency for up to three million Hong Kong residents following a security clampdown in the former British colony.
Thirdly, if Suning's decision isn't politically-motivated and has more to do with the hole left in the 2019-20 season by coronavirus, they could set in motion a domino effect of overseas broadcasters doing likewise.
Although the Premier League action did resume in June, broadcasters argued they weren't getting entirely what they were paying for in the absence of crowds and atmospheres that help make the competition what it is.
At one point domestic and overseas broadcasters were reportedly demanding £330m in rebates, with Sky forming a big chunk of that at £170m.
This settlement was agreed in mid-June with the payment deferred until next season to allow clubs some breathing space.
The alarming situation with Suning does shine a light on the enormous deals in place in almost every country in the world to bring coverage of Premier League matches to fans.
The Premier League is able to package up broadcast deals country by country and for flexible durations. Some networks buy the rights and then sub-let them to channels in other countries.
The China deal, which is the Premier League's most lucrative for an individual country outside the UK, was agreed in 2016 and is worth £564m in all for 2019 to 2022.
Games are shown on streaming service PPTV and it was understood to be worth more than 12 times the existing deal of $60m over three years with Super Sport Media Group.
The partnership was launched on the eve of last year's Premier League Asia Trophy in Shanghai with Michael Owen putting in a guest cameo. Whether it will last until 2022 is now in doubt.
But even that deal was put in the shade by the six-year, £2bn agreement earlier this year between the Premier League and Nordic Entertainment Group (NENT) covering Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland from 2022.
This represented the first TV deal put in place for after 2022 and the first sold in Europe on a six-year basis.
NENT were able to outbid long-standing Norwegian rights holder TV2, whose boss Olav T. Sandes making no secret of his disappointment at losing them.
There have been six-year contracts before. American network NBC retained their Premier League rights back in 2015, paying about $1bn (£641m) for the privilege.
That was a big rise from their previous three-year, $250m contract but was seen as representing good value.
'You do the math,' said NBC Sports Group chairman Mark Lazarus. 'That's 2,280 matches over the next six years plus hours of other related content.'
Other money-spinning deals have followed. The BeIN Sports deal covering the Middle East and north Africa is worth £500m a season over three years.
SuperSport pay £168m per season to screen the Premier League in sub-Saharan Africa, while the Canal Plus contract in France is worth around £100m per season.
In other places, an interesting dynamic is at play. In Singapore, for example, Singtel pay £70m per season for Premier League rights but makes £175m per year from its subscribers paying around £35m a month for the live games.
It's led the Premier League to wonder why that subscriber money isn't coming directly to them and Masters spoke about what has been dubbed a 'Premflix' model in the future.
This would allow fans anywhere in the world to log on and purchase streams of the games they wanted to watch at a set price as opposed to subscribing to a TV network for all games.
Masters has spoken about a blend of TV broadcasting and streaming when the next tender comes round from 2022 onward.
The Singapore example is a pertinent one given that the Asia-Pacific region is the most valuable for the Premier League, comprising 32.9 per cent of that £4.2bn bonanza.
Europe comes next but the value of Premier League rights is by no means uniform across the board. Of the 2019-22 deals, 48 per cent of revenue came from just France, Norway and Sweden, according to SportBusiness Media.
Yet we should not assume that the league is bringing in more money in every single country. Values fluctuate, often depending on whether more than one network enters the bidding war.
Japan, India and New Zealand all saw a fall in value while an agreement in the Caribbean with Caribbean Premier League Limited for 2019-22 saw a fall of some 61.5 per cent.
But this remains the exception to the rule for the moment, though there's no telling what impact coronavirus will have especially if fans can't return to stadiums in England amid a second wave.
In April, the streaming service DAZN, which holds the rights for Brazil, Canada, Japan and Spain, asked if they could halt payments until the action resumed.
But the situation with China is a delicate one for the Premier League and one they will hope and pray doesn't lead to their ever-growing bubble being popped.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Football Today Podcast tries to explain what the salary cap means for English Football
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... h-football
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... h-football
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The first game of the 2020/21 French L1 has been postponed due to covid.
Marseille were due to play St. Etienne on Friday but there are four cases in the Marseille squad so match postponed. The League, no doubt at the behest of the broadcaster, has already rescheduled another game (Bordeaux v Nantes which was due to be played on Saturday).
Not a very good sign to say the least.
Marseille were due to play St. Etienne on Friday but there are four cases in the Marseille squad so match postponed. The League, no doubt at the behest of the broadcaster, has already rescheduled another game (Bordeaux v Nantes which was due to be played on Saturday).
Not a very good sign to say the least.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Following the recent Wigan debacle this excerpt for a recent Europol report on Crime and Sport does not make for good reading - though upt to recently the betting syndicates have been targeting leagues like Cyprus.
https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1295766227567226881
https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1295766227567226881
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Premier League make moves to minimise any rebate to domestic broadcasters in the coming season - from the MAil
EXCLUSIVE: Premier League cut a deal to show 20 extra matches on TV in the new season - but none on free-to-air - as fans face missing out on watching their teams live
- Premier League has announced 20 extra matches will be broadcast this season
- It will soften the blow of fans being banned from stadiums until at least October
- But none will be broadcast on free-to-air channels like they were last season
- The majority of the additional 20 TV fixtures will be broadcast by Sky Sports
By MATT HUGHES FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 08:29, 20 August 2020 | UPDATED: 10:10, 20 August 2020
The Premier League has announced that an extra 20 matches will be broadcast live on television this season after releasing the fixture list on Thursday morning.
The top-flight clubs have opted against televising every game as they did during Project Restart due to fears from broadcasters that wall-to-wall football would dilute their audiences and concerns over a lack of space in their schedules.
But Sportsmail has learned that some additional matches will be shown to compensate for the fact that fans will be prohibited from attending games until October at the earliest.
As Sportsmail revealed on Wednesday, a number of clubs had sought permission to stream non-televised matches on their websites using the iFollow service developed by the EFL in the hope of raising additional revenue via subscriptions.
But that proposal was blocked by an alliance of Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime who have collectively paid over £5billion over three years for the live rights to Premier League games.
Instead those broadcasters will be given additional games, with 12 shown on Sky Sports, six on BT Sport and two on Amazon Prime.
Under the existing agreement Sky were due to show 128 games this season, with 52 on BT Sport and 20 on Amazon Prime.
The Premier League has also announced there will be two additional midweek programmes next season.
One will take place across the weeks commencing January 11 and 18, and the second in the week commencing May 10. All of these games will be broadcast live.
In addition to securing extra games the rights holders have secured another victory by ensuring that no matches will be made available free-to-air next season.
During Project Restart the Premier League bowed to pressure from Government to make live games more widely available by gifting four matches to the BBC despite that fact that they did not have any live rights, while others were shown of Sky's free-to-air channel, Sky Pick.
EXCLUSIVE: Premier League cut a deal to show 20 extra matches on TV in the new season - but none on free-to-air - as fans face missing out on watching their teams live
- Premier League has announced 20 extra matches will be broadcast this season
- It will soften the blow of fans being banned from stadiums until at least October
- But none will be broadcast on free-to-air channels like they were last season
- The majority of the additional 20 TV fixtures will be broadcast by Sky Sports
By MATT HUGHES FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 08:29, 20 August 2020 | UPDATED: 10:10, 20 August 2020
The Premier League has announced that an extra 20 matches will be broadcast live on television this season after releasing the fixture list on Thursday morning.
The top-flight clubs have opted against televising every game as they did during Project Restart due to fears from broadcasters that wall-to-wall football would dilute their audiences and concerns over a lack of space in their schedules.
But Sportsmail has learned that some additional matches will be shown to compensate for the fact that fans will be prohibited from attending games until October at the earliest.
As Sportsmail revealed on Wednesday, a number of clubs had sought permission to stream non-televised matches on their websites using the iFollow service developed by the EFL in the hope of raising additional revenue via subscriptions.
But that proposal was blocked by an alliance of Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime who have collectively paid over £5billion over three years for the live rights to Premier League games.
Instead those broadcasters will be given additional games, with 12 shown on Sky Sports, six on BT Sport and two on Amazon Prime.
Under the existing agreement Sky were due to show 128 games this season, with 52 on BT Sport and 20 on Amazon Prime.
The Premier League has also announced there will be two additional midweek programmes next season.
One will take place across the weeks commencing January 11 and 18, and the second in the week commencing May 10. All of these games will be broadcast live.
In addition to securing extra games the rights holders have secured another victory by ensuring that no matches will be made available free-to-air next season.
During Project Restart the Premier League bowed to pressure from Government to make live games more widely available by gifting four matches to the BBC despite that fact that they did not have any live rights, while others were shown of Sky's free-to-air channel, Sky Pick.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Seems Derby are about to have this loan investigated following a number of complaints from other Championship clubs (Steve Gibson anyone?) - from the MailChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:44 pmAfter several years of search Derby have found a new Investor willing to put £30m into the club - it is not for shares - it is a loan from Michael Dell (he recently did something similar for Southampton - from the Telegraph
Derby County receive £30m cash injection from American billionaire
TOM MORGAN AUGUST 12, 2020
Derby County have received a major cash injection borrowed against the club's assets from a New York investment bank belonging to American billionaire Michael Dell.
Dell is the owner of MSD Capital and records on Companies House confirm a loan - believed to be in the region of £30 million - was registered last week.
The Daily Telegraph understands it is the second loan agreed with Derby chairman Mel Morris, who has been seeking additional funding for over two years.
He was previously in talks with Henry Gabay, a London-based businessman, but a deal has stalled due to a number of factors including the sacking of former club captain Richard Keogh and an English Football League charge against the club for breaking spending rules in January.
Dell was partly involved in a potential takeover at Sunderland last year, with three investors from MSD Partners instead loaning £12m to the holding company of Black Cats owner Stewart Donald.
It is understood that Dell and Derby are talking about a range of financial arrangements, which could include a significant loan, investment or takeover.
Dell was listed as the 25th richest man in the world in Forbes last year and has also held talks with a number of other clubs in England outside the top tier.
Derby are among many clubs on a financial knife-edge in the Championship post Covid-19 and the club’s willingness to take out a significant loan at commercial rates will prompt questions over how much spending power Morris still has personally.
The loan comes as the EFL is under renewed pressure from furious Championship clubs to resolve the charges hanging over Derby.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course with the club no longer owning the ground the assets used for security are a jumbled lot - you can find them here
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history
Derby County set for ANOTHER inquiry into alleged breaches of EFL rules as club faces threat of multiple points deductions over £80m sale of Pride Park and £30m loan from equity firm
- Several clubs have complained about a loan made to Derby by MSD UK Holdings
- The club could face relegation should they be hit with multiple points penalties
- EFL regulations ban clubs from losing more than £39m over a three-year period
- Derby are already anticipating a verdict relating to a charge regarding Pride Park
By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:31, 19 August 2020 | UPDATED: 09:10, 20 August 2020
Derby County could face another investigation into an alleged breach of EFL rules after several clubs complained to the Board about a loan undertaken from MSD UK Holdings Limited on the grounds it has created a conflict of interest.
As previously revealed by Sportsmail, the Championship club borrowed around £30million from Michael Dell's private equity firm earlier this year 12 months after Sunderland took out a similar loan from American billionaire's hedge fund, leading other clubs to claim they have broken EFL regulations.
Derby are expecting a verdict imminently from the independent panel convened by the EFL into their alleged breach of spending rules, and could do without a renewed focus on their financial practices.
The existing charge relates to Derby's sale of Pride Park to a company owned by chairman Mel Morris for £80m, as well as their unusual method of valuing their players for accounting purposes, which could lead to them being docked 12 points next season.
Derby would face almost certain relegation from the Championship if hit with multiple points deductions, but will receive little sympathy from some of their rivals who are convinced they have been using creative accounting to get round the EFL's profit and sustainability rules, which prohibit clubs from losing more than £39m over a three-year period.
Sportsmail has learned that several clubs have contacted the EFL demanding clarification on the loan from MSD UK Holdings, that was confirmed in documents lodged at Companies House earlier this month, which they claim is a breach of the regulations.
The EFL rules make clear that third party investment in multiple clubs is not permitted, other than lending facilities provided by commercial banks. Section 10 regulation 105.1 of the EFL rulebook states that 'except with the prior written consent of the Board a person, or an associate of that person, who is interested in a club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club.'
Regulation 106.5 goes on to clarify that it is the responsibility of the clubs to ensure that a person who lends money 'other than in the ordinary course of banking… shall not be acting in such a manner as to cause a breach of any Regulation, and in particular Regulations 104 to 108, and failure to do so shall constitute misconduct.'
The complainants' contention is that Derby's loan is not 'in the ordinary course of banking' as MSD are not registered with the banking regulator, unlike other equity houses such as the Macquarie Group and Shawbrook Bank, who also provide funding to football clubs.
MSD also provided a loan in the region of £80m to Southampton last month, although as they are not involved with any other Premier League clubs there is no question of that breaching regulations.
Southampton sources described the MSD borrowing as a 'bridging loan' which replaced a previous lending facility with Macquarie, which was not renewed.
The Derby complaint is a matter for the EFL Board, who have the power to approve the loan of investigate further. Regulation 112 of the EFL rules gives the Board the authority to relax some of its provisions if it is deemed to be appropriate.
The EFL and Derby declined to comment.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
An interesting piece from twohundredpercent.com on the latest suitors for Newcastle United
https://twohundredpercent.net/newcastle ... w-suitors/
brings to mind this
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 6554659840
https://twohundredpercent.net/newcastle ... w-suitors/
brings to mind this
This is what Simon Chadwick had to say earlier in the weekChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:28 pmFollowing the recent Wigan debacle this excerpt for a recent Europol report on Crime and Sport does not make for good reading - though upt to recently the betting syndicates have been targeting leagues like Cyprus.
https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1295766227567226881
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 6554659840
Last edited by Chester Perry on Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
After much sniffing around the French Leagues it appears that City Football Club may have yet have settled on a 10th club to join the stable - from the FT
Manchester City in late-stage talks to buy French club ESTAC Troyes
MURAD AHMED AUGUST 20, 2020
Manchester City’s parent company is in late-stage talks to buy second division French football club ESTAC Troyes, in a deal that would extend its strategy of taking over football clubs around the world.
City Football Group executives have held talks with several other French sides in recent months, including another 2nd tier team Nancy, but consider Troyes as their first choice target in the country, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
While the parties soon hope to conclude a transaction with an acquisition price in the “single-digit millions” of euros, talks were continuing and could yet come to nothing, said a person with knowledge of the negotiations.
It would be the latest football club purchase for Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the billionaire member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family who bought Manchester City in 2008.
He has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on world class footballers and turned Manchester City into a force capable of winning the sport’s biggest prizes.
In 2013, he went a step further, creating CFG and embarking on a spending spree to buy or take minority stakes in clubs around the world.
Some of the teams, such as New York City FC and Mumbai City, have been bought with the particular aim of breaking into lucrative international markets and promoting City’s brand.
But the strategy, which is masterminded by chief executive Ferran Soriano, is also designed to spot promising players and bring them into the CFG network.
A deal with Troyes would follow the strategy of investing in other small sides on the continent — such as Spain’s Girona and Belgium’s Lommel SK — giving wider opportunities to young stars and ensuring players gain experience of European leagues where the standard is considered higher than elsewhere in the world.
Troyes narrowly missed out on promotion in the past two seasons, having been relegated from Ligue 1, France’s top tier, in 2018.
CFG is also looking to make further investments, evaluating teams in Europe, Africa and Asia. While spending is fuelled by its rich owner, new funding has been provided by US private equity group Silver Lake, which last year paid $500m for a 10 per cent stake in CFG, valuing the group at $4.8bn.
Last month, Manchester City overturned a two-season ban from the Champions League competition for alleged breaches of “Financial Fair Play” rules. This allows it to take part in Europe’s top competition where clubs have the chance to share in more than €2bn of prize money.
The club’s victory has not been matched on the pitch in this case. It was knocked out of the competition by France’s Olympique Lyonnais last week and has never won the tournament.
Manchester City in late-stage talks to buy French club ESTAC Troyes
MURAD AHMED AUGUST 20, 2020
Manchester City’s parent company is in late-stage talks to buy second division French football club ESTAC Troyes, in a deal that would extend its strategy of taking over football clubs around the world.
City Football Group executives have held talks with several other French sides in recent months, including another 2nd tier team Nancy, but consider Troyes as their first choice target in the country, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
While the parties soon hope to conclude a transaction with an acquisition price in the “single-digit millions” of euros, talks were continuing and could yet come to nothing, said a person with knowledge of the negotiations.
It would be the latest football club purchase for Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the billionaire member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family who bought Manchester City in 2008.
He has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on world class footballers and turned Manchester City into a force capable of winning the sport’s biggest prizes.
In 2013, he went a step further, creating CFG and embarking on a spending spree to buy or take minority stakes in clubs around the world.
Some of the teams, such as New York City FC and Mumbai City, have been bought with the particular aim of breaking into lucrative international markets and promoting City’s brand.
But the strategy, which is masterminded by chief executive Ferran Soriano, is also designed to spot promising players and bring them into the CFG network.
A deal with Troyes would follow the strategy of investing in other small sides on the continent — such as Spain’s Girona and Belgium’s Lommel SK — giving wider opportunities to young stars and ensuring players gain experience of European leagues where the standard is considered higher than elsewhere in the world.
Troyes narrowly missed out on promotion in the past two seasons, having been relegated from Ligue 1, France’s top tier, in 2018.
CFG is also looking to make further investments, evaluating teams in Europe, Africa and Asia. While spending is fuelled by its rich owner, new funding has been provided by US private equity group Silver Lake, which last year paid $500m for a 10 per cent stake in CFG, valuing the group at $4.8bn.
Last month, Manchester City overturned a two-season ban from the Champions League competition for alleged breaches of “Financial Fair Play” rules. This allows it to take part in Europe’s top competition where clubs have the chance to share in more than €2bn of prize money.
The club’s victory has not been matched on the pitch in this case. It was knocked out of the competition by France’s Olympique Lyonnais last week and has never won the tournament.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Football Today Podcast loks at the growing problem of "Transfer rumours in the Social Media age"
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... -media-age
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... -media-age
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
How to spin a story - The Telegraph with a different take on the same news - I have posted previously this summer about the advantages the Premier League has going forwards by being the only major league to not have already sold rights to all fixtures to domestic broadcastersChester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:21 pmThe Premier League make moves to minimise any rebate to domestic broadcasters in the coming season - from the MAil
EXCLUSIVE: Premier League cut a deal to show 20 extra matches on TV in the new season - but none on free-to-air - as fans face missing out on watching their teams live
- Premier League has announced 20 extra matches will be broadcast this season
- It will soften the blow of fans being banned from stadiums until at least October
- But none will be broadcast on free-to-air channels like they were last season
- The majority of the additional 20 TV fixtures will be broadcast by Sky Sports
By MATT HUGHES FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 08:29, 20 August 2020 | UPDATED: 10:10, 20 August 2020
The Premier League has announced that an extra 20 matches will be broadcast live on television this season after releasing the fixture list on Thursday morning.
The top-flight clubs have opted against televising every game as they did during Project Restart due to fears from broadcasters that wall-to-wall football would dilute their audiences and concerns over a lack of space in their schedules.
But Sportsmail has learned that some additional matches will be shown to compensate for the fact that fans will be prohibited from attending games until October at the earliest.
As Sportsmail revealed on Wednesday, a number of clubs had sought permission to stream non-televised matches on their websites using the iFollow service developed by the EFL in the hope of raising additional revenue via subscriptions.
But that proposal was blocked by an alliance of Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime who have collectively paid over £5billion over three years for the live rights to Premier League games.
Instead those broadcasters will be given additional games, with 12 shown on Sky Sports, six on BT Sport and two on Amazon Prime.
Under the existing agreement Sky were due to show 128 games this season, with 52 on BT Sport and 20 on Amazon Prime.
The Premier League has also announced there will be two additional midweek programmes next season.
One will take place across the weeks commencing January 11 and 18, and the second in the week commencing May 10. All of these games will be broadcast live.
In addition to securing extra games the rights holders have secured another victory by ensuring that no matches will be made available free-to-air next season.
During Project Restart the Premier League bowed to pressure from Government to make live games more widely available by gifting four matches to the BBC despite that fact that they did not have any live rights, while others were shown of Sky's free-to-air channel, Sky Pick.
Premier League facing fan backlash as 160 matches set to be untelevised next season
BEN RUMSBY AUGUST 20, 2020
The Government and Premier League were on Thursday facing a major fan backlash after it was confirmed 160 games next season would not be broadcast in the UK, despite the on-going impact of coronavirus.
The publication of the 2020-21 fixtures included the announcement that more matches than ever would be shown live – 220 – but there was no provision made for the start of the campaign being behind closed doors or the prospect of capped attendances for much of the remainder of it.
The Government ordered the Premier League to show every fixture of Project Restart live due to spectators being banned from games, and supporters groups on Thursday warned a refusal to maintain that policy was “a major, major problem” and would drive some to illegal streams.
Telegraph Sport can reveal the potential lack of any fan access to more than 40 per cent of games was raised during a meeting between the Premier League and representatives of the Football Supporters’ Association on Wednesday.
Among those in attendance was Katrina Law, head of the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust, who has also served on the Football Association council.
The THST co-chair said: “Fans are expecting – probably quite rightly – the same broadcast coverage that we had through Project Restart.
“I don’t think the penny has dropped. And I think that is going to be a major, major problem.
“Match-going fans are absolutely going to expect fair broadcast access to games that they’re prevented from attending for public health and safety reasons.”
Fans of English Football League clubs have been able to stream their teams’ matches live for the past three seasons and Law added: “It would only be match-going fans in the Premier League in the UK who would be deprived of watching their team. Unless, of course, the Premier League and the broadcasters want to encourage us all to stream illegally.”
Law said she did not know who was “blocking” the transmission of all behind-closed-doors games.
“I would have thought the decision came down to the broadcasters but I’m sure the final decision would come down to money,” she added.
A third of matches under Project Restart were shown free to air but Law said a substantial number of fans would be prepared to pay an “accessible amount” to access additional games next season.
Her sentiments were echoed by Dave Pennington, vice-chair of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, who like Law is also an FSA national council representative.
Pennington said the Premier League should also consider guaranteeing season-ticket holders access to live coverage of their teams’ games until stadiums were back to full capacity, adding that to do otherwise would be a double-whammy for those unable to attend because of capped attendances.
Law added: “We’d just ask that the broadcasters, the Premier League and the clubs all got round the table and discussed this in the best interests of fans who are all of their customers and consumers. They’re going to need us in the future. It’ll be very short-sighted for them not to allow fans to watch their teams.”
The Premier League declined to comment beyond their statement in Thursday's fixtures announcement that it was “committed to getting fans back into full stadiums as soon as possible”.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have posted a quite a lot (when I think about it) about football and brands/branding, and also discussed on various threads (including this) about how we can grow our club commercially (I still like the notion of selling us to America as the Green Bay of English "soccer"). But this article https://theesk.org/2020/08/18/rebranding/ from our friend The Esk (and yes it is entirely Everton focussed, it has been causing a bit of a stir amongst their support) has been gnawing at me since it appeared - I just cannot stop thinking about how the same discussion could apply to our club.
Just what is Burnley FC's brand? - it is an important question given we are now at the interview stage for a Head of Global Partnerships (part of a growing commercial strategy that Chief Exec Neil Hart hinted at just after the release of our last financial results) the person filling such a role needs something to work from. As Paul (The Esk) stated in his piece, it is something everyone at the club and it it's fans should know but do we? I am unsure as to whether anyone does, and yet our club has appeared pretty much aligned from top to bottom, boardroom to terrace for quite some time (Sean's gripes about finance apart).
If we take the lead from Paul's discussion of club motto - ours is "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris" which translates as the admirable "the prize and the cause of our labours" - into consideration what does it tell us (apart from the fact we appear to have ditched it quite some time ago - possibly because of the confusion it created when it was poorly translated (a very Burnley thing - think Bertie Mee(Bee) said to Bill Shankly, in our Lancashire home(s), Wood(s), Hendrick(s) etc.) as - "the prize (trophies) is the cause of our labours". I find it to be very Dychean - work hard with the right attitude (legs, hearts, minds) and you just might get to wear this shirt. It is proud yet modest, solid and robust, even industrial just like our town and it's heritage. But is has not been part of our visual identity for some time and certainly not in the Dyche Premier League era. That has been focussed more on his mantra's and the marketing slogan's that last for a year or two at most.
More interesting is the "One Club for all" moniker, I am not sure when it first appeared, I first noticed it in the aftermath of the Etihad flyover. This again very Dychean and ties in very well with what Neil Hart built with BFCitC (fascinating side note - Neil Hart came to Burnley's attention for the community role after being recommended by non-other than Sean Dyche). This is intriguing territory for our club, one that does amazing work in it's surrounding community (not that unusual in football these days), bringing it closer together and supporting those in need. It's role post the riots has been significant in reaching out to and bringing together our segregated communities. It's rapid and huge growth over the last 7 years more so. Yet, again, while not being openly spoken about. think how aligned Ben Mee's "that is not what we are about" interview at the Ethihad post match and the Burnley Fans organising themselves to promote an anti-hate message.
Is this just another local marketing slogan or is it part of re-branding? If it is re-branding where does the end lie, are we going to be like St Pauli, Union Berlin or even Clapton in the 11th tier of English football (you should look them all up, each is a fascinating story, some of which I have featured on this thread). Such identity is a long way form the current perception of us. The restart (which at the Turf came post fly over) also saw some thought provoking banners around the ground including an LGBT one, those kinds of messages are certainly new to the majority of our fans, yet fit right in with the inclusion ethos of the clubs I have just mentioned. But does it, should it fit in with what the club's brand should be? (i think yes). One thing I do know is that a brand has to evolve while maintaining it's core values, I for one can see how this current messaging fit's in with these perceptions, long held, of our club:
this is interesting - a article championing our badge https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2015/1/ ... ier-league
a Man Utd fan on the growing admiration for our club https://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/a ... burnley-fc
a recent YouGov survey on how Burnley FC is perceived https://yougov.co.uk/topics/sport/explo ... urnley_F_C
"The underdog, always punching above their weight" - Tifo podcast on "How do you value a Football's club brand" from 23:30 in https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/h ... 0447302603
The same things come up all the time:
- Hard working
- Determined
- Committed
- Distinctive style
- Talented
We can then add to that a widely held notion of Burnley FC being the best run club (financially at least) in the Premier League, owned by life long fans (who view themselves as custodian's and whose primary aim is to leave the club in a stronger more stable position than when they arrived), free from debt, one that continues to develop from incomes it has generated and always within it's means. The proud boast of fans is now "Built not Bought".
Tell me if those perceptions do not sound a lot like "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris", when we add the latest messaging we can be seen as a club moving forward, living it's "togetherness/inclusion values" while always acknowledging, but not being limited by it's past.
We have a brand, many of us (me included) will struggle to articulate it, but we do seem to live it having been infected with it by osmosis - I just hope that whoever gets that Head of Global Partnerships role has a very clear (and aligned ) perception of what it is.
One note of caution is that I for one see a conflict between our caring and sharing, moral stance approach with that of Gambling sponsorship - I hope we can move away from that asap and preferably before the law forces us too.
Just what is Burnley FC's brand? - it is an important question given we are now at the interview stage for a Head of Global Partnerships (part of a growing commercial strategy that Chief Exec Neil Hart hinted at just after the release of our last financial results) the person filling such a role needs something to work from. As Paul (The Esk) stated in his piece, it is something everyone at the club and it it's fans should know but do we? I am unsure as to whether anyone does, and yet our club has appeared pretty much aligned from top to bottom, boardroom to terrace for quite some time (Sean's gripes about finance apart).
If we take the lead from Paul's discussion of club motto - ours is "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris" which translates as the admirable "the prize and the cause of our labours" - into consideration what does it tell us (apart from the fact we appear to have ditched it quite some time ago - possibly because of the confusion it created when it was poorly translated (a very Burnley thing - think Bertie Mee(Bee) said to Bill Shankly, in our Lancashire home(s), Wood(s), Hendrick(s) etc.) as - "the prize (trophies) is the cause of our labours". I find it to be very Dychean - work hard with the right attitude (legs, hearts, minds) and you just might get to wear this shirt. It is proud yet modest, solid and robust, even industrial just like our town and it's heritage. But is has not been part of our visual identity for some time and certainly not in the Dyche Premier League era. That has been focussed more on his mantra's and the marketing slogan's that last for a year or two at most.
More interesting is the "One Club for all" moniker, I am not sure when it first appeared, I first noticed it in the aftermath of the Etihad flyover. This again very Dychean and ties in very well with what Neil Hart built with BFCitC (fascinating side note - Neil Hart came to Burnley's attention for the community role after being recommended by non-other than Sean Dyche). This is intriguing territory for our club, one that does amazing work in it's surrounding community (not that unusual in football these days), bringing it closer together and supporting those in need. It's role post the riots has been significant in reaching out to and bringing together our segregated communities. It's rapid and huge growth over the last 7 years more so. Yet, again, while not being openly spoken about. think how aligned Ben Mee's "that is not what we are about" interview at the Ethihad post match and the Burnley Fans organising themselves to promote an anti-hate message.
Is this just another local marketing slogan or is it part of re-branding? If it is re-branding where does the end lie, are we going to be like St Pauli, Union Berlin or even Clapton in the 11th tier of English football (you should look them all up, each is a fascinating story, some of which I have featured on this thread). Such identity is a long way form the current perception of us. The restart (which at the Turf came post fly over) also saw some thought provoking banners around the ground including an LGBT one, those kinds of messages are certainly new to the majority of our fans, yet fit right in with the inclusion ethos of the clubs I have just mentioned. But does it, should it fit in with what the club's brand should be? (i think yes). One thing I do know is that a brand has to evolve while maintaining it's core values, I for one can see how this current messaging fit's in with these perceptions, long held, of our club:
this is interesting - a article championing our badge https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2015/1/ ... ier-league
a Man Utd fan on the growing admiration for our club https://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/a ... burnley-fc
a recent YouGov survey on how Burnley FC is perceived https://yougov.co.uk/topics/sport/explo ... urnley_F_C
"The underdog, always punching above their weight" - Tifo podcast on "How do you value a Football's club brand" from 23:30 in https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/h ... 0447302603
The same things come up all the time:
- Hard working
- Determined
- Committed
- Distinctive style
- Talented
We can then add to that a widely held notion of Burnley FC being the best run club (financially at least) in the Premier League, owned by life long fans (who view themselves as custodian's and whose primary aim is to leave the club in a stronger more stable position than when they arrived), free from debt, one that continues to develop from incomes it has generated and always within it's means. The proud boast of fans is now "Built not Bought".
Tell me if those perceptions do not sound a lot like "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris", when we add the latest messaging we can be seen as a club moving forward, living it's "togetherness/inclusion values" while always acknowledging, but not being limited by it's past.
We have a brand, many of us (me included) will struggle to articulate it, but we do seem to live it having been infected with it by osmosis - I just hope that whoever gets that Head of Global Partnerships role has a very clear (and aligned ) perception of what it is.
One note of caution is that I for one see a conflict between our caring and sharing, moral stance approach with that of Gambling sponsorship - I hope we can move away from that asap and preferably before the law forces us too.
Last edited by Chester Perry on Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: Royboyclaret
-
Royboyclaret
- Posts: 3880
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1280 times
- Has Liked: 681 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Top post, Chester.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:25 pmI have posted a quite a lot (when I think about it) about football and brands/branding, and also discussed on various threads (including this) about how we can grow our club commercially (I still like the notion of selling us to America as the Green Bay of English "soccer"). But this article https://theesk.org/2020/08/18/rebranding/ from our friend The Esk (and yes it is entirely Everton focussed and has been causing a bit of a stir amongst their support) has been gnawing at me since it appeared - I just cannot stop thinking about how the same discussion could apply to our club.
Just what is Burnley FC's brand? - it is an important question given we are now at the interview stage for a Head of Global Partnerships (part of a growing commercial strategy that Chief Exec Neil Hart hinted at just after the release of our last financial results) the person filling such a role needs something to work from. An as Paul (The Esk) stated in his piece it is something everyone at the club and it it's fans should know but do we? I am unsure as to whether anyone does, and yet our club has appeared pretty much aligned from top to bottom. boardroom to terrace for quite some time (Sean's gripes about finance apart).
If we take the lead from Paul's discussion of club motto - ours is "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris" which translates as the admirable "the prize and the cause of our labours" - into consideration what does it tell us (apart from the fact we appear to have ditched it quite sum time ago - possibly because of the confusion it created when it was poorly translated (a very Burnley thing - think Bill Shankly said to Bertie Mee(Bee), in our Lancashire home(s), Wood(s), Hendrick(s) etc.) as - "the prize (trophies) is the cause of our labours". I find it to be very Dychean - work hard with the right attitude (legs, hearts, minds) and you just might get to wear this shirt. It is proud yet modest, solid and robust, even industrial just like our town and it's heritage. But is has not been part of our visual identity for some time and certainly not in the Dyche Premier League era. That has been focussed more on his mantra's and the marketing slogan's that last for a year or two at most.
More interesting, I am not sure when it first appeared, I first noticed it in the aftermath of the Etihad flyover, is the "One Club for all" moniker which is again very Dychean and ties in very well with what Neil Hart built with BFCitC (fascinating side note - Neil Hart came to Burnley's attention for the community role after being recommended by non-other than Sean Dyche). This is interesting territory for our club, one that does amazing work in it's surrounding community (not that unusual in football these days), bringing it closer together and supporting those in need. It's role post the riots has been significant in reaching out to and bringing together our segregated communities. Yet, again, while not being openly spoken about. think how aligned Ben Mee's "that is not what we are about" interview at the Ethihad post match and the Burnley Fans organising themselves to promote an anti-hate message.
Is this just another local marketing slogan or is it part of re-branding? If it is re-branding where does the end lie, are we going to be like St Pauli, Union Berlin or even Clapton in the 11th tier of English football (you should look them all up fascinating stories some of which I have featured on this thread). It is a long way form the current perception of us. The restart also saw some interesting banners around the ground including an LGBT one, those kinds of messages are certainly new to the majority of fans and fit right in with the ethos of the clubs I have just mentioned. But does it, should it fit in with what the club's brand should be. One thing I do know is that a brand has to evolve while maintaining it's core values, I for one can see how this current messaging fit's in with the perceptions long held of our club@
this is interesting - a article championing our badge https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2015/1/ ... ier-league
a Man Utd fan on the growing admiration for our club https://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/a ... burnley-fc
a recent YouGov survey on how Burnley FC is perceived https://yougov.co.uk/topics/sport/explo ... urnley_F_C
The underdog, always punching above their weight - Tifo podcast on "How do you value a Football's club brand" from 23:30 in https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/h ... 0447302603
The same things come up all the time:
- Hard working
- Determined
- Committed
- Distinctive style
- Talented
We can then add to that a widely held notion of Burnley FC being the best run club (financially at least) in the Premier League, owned by life long fans (who view themselves as custodian's and whose primary aim is to leave the club in a stronger more stable position than when they arrived), free from debt, one that continues to develop from incomes it has generated and always within it's means. The proud boast of fans is now "Built not Bought".
Tell me if those perceptions do not sound a lot like "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris", when we add the latest messaging we can be seen as a club moving forward, living it's "togetherness/inclusion values" while always acknowledging it's past.
We have a brand, many of us (me included) will struggle to articulate it, but we do seem to live it having been infected with it by osmosis - I just hope that whoever gets that Head of Global Partnerships role has a very clear (and aligned ) perception of what it is.
One note of caution is that I for one see a conflict between our caring and sharing, moral stance approach with that of Gambling sponsorship - I hope we can move away from that asap and preferably before the law forces us too.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Thanks Roy, it is a somewhat different from my normal type of post but having read that article by The Esk, I just couldn't stop thinking about it (he does that a lot to me which is why I keep linking his output). I decided to post it here rather than on it's own thread because I saw it as a continuation of a long running though infrequently visited discussion point in this thread, though it may drum up more discussion on it's own thread.
-
Royboyclaret
- Posts: 3880
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1280 times
- Has Liked: 681 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The only area I might take issue with you is the very final paragraph. Totally understand your sentiments but for our Board it had simply to be a balanced and cold decision. That £7.5m from LoveBet last season represented a little under 50% of our total Commercial Income, with ten PL clubs trailing in our wake with that figure, including the likes of Newcastle, Leicester and Crystal Palace. For us it's simply a case of needs must.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:51 pmThanks Roy, it is a somewhat different from my normal type of post but having read that article by The Esk, I just couldn't stop thinking about it (he does that a lot to me which is why I keep linking his output). I decided to post it here rather than on it's own thread because I saw it as a continuation of a long running though infrequently visited discussion point in this thread, though it may drum up more discussion on it's own thread.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I understand the sentiment, but IF our values are to include moral stances (very tricky in this geo-political era) then I see no choice but to move away from gambling - if you look at the clubs I have cited you will see that values do and must come first (even when it directly affects what we see on the pitch) values that can be bought mean that the brand is worthless - all those clubs have found additional revenue streams and maintained/grown supporter loyalty by sticking to their values.Royboyclaret wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 10:04 pmThe only area I might take issue with you is the very final paragraph. Totally understand your sentiments but for our Board it had simply to be a balanced and cold decision. That £7.5m from LoveBet last season represented a little under 50% of our total Commercial Income, with ten PL clubs trailing in our wake with that figure, including the likes of Newcastle, Leicester and Crystal Palace. For us it's simply a case of needs must.
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Wonderfully evocative and thoughtful post ChesterChester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:25 pmI have posted a quite a lot (when I think about it) about football and brands/branding, and also discussed on various threads (including this) about how we can grow our club commercially (I still like the notion of selling us to America as the Green Bay of English "soccer"). But this article https://theesk.org/2020/08/18/rebranding/ from our friend The Esk (and yes it is entirely Everton focussed and has been causing a bit of a stir amongst their support) has been gnawing at me since it appeared - I just cannot stop thinking about how the same discussion could apply to our club.
Just what is Burnley FC's brand? - it is an important question given we are now at the interview stage for a Head of Global Partnerships (part of a growing commercial strategy that Chief Exec Neil Hart hinted at just after the release of our last financial results) the person filling such a role needs something to work from. An as Paul (The Esk) stated in his piece it is something everyone at the club and it it's fans should know but do we? I am unsure as to whether anyone does, and yet our club has appeared pretty much aligned from top to bottom. boardroom to terrace for quite some time (Sean's gripes about finance apart).
If we take the lead from Paul's discussion of club motto - ours is "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris" which translates as the admirable "the prize and the cause of our labours" - into consideration what does it tell us (apart from the fact we appear to have ditched it quite sum time ago - possibly because of the confusion it created when it was poorly translated (a very Burnley thing - think Bill Shankly said to Bertie Mee(Bee), in our Lancashire home(s), Wood(s), Hendrick(s) etc.) as - "the prize (trophies) is the cause of our labours". I find it to be very Dychean - work hard with the right attitude (legs, hearts, minds) and you just might get to wear this shirt. It is proud yet modest, solid and robust, even industrial just like our town and it's heritage. But is has not been part of our visual identity for some time and certainly not in the Dyche Premier League era. That has been focussed more on his mantra's and the marketing slogan's that last for a year or two at most.
More interesting, I am not sure when it first appeared, I first noticed it in the aftermath of the Etihad flyover, is the "One Club for all" moniker which is again very Dychean and ties in very well with what Neil Hart built with BFCitC (fascinating side note - Neil Hart came to Burnley's attention for the community role after being recommended by non-other than Sean Dyche). This is interesting territory for our club, one that does amazing work in it's surrounding community (not that unusual in football these days), bringing it closer together and supporting those in need. It's role post the riots has been significant in reaching out to and bringing together our segregated communities. Yet, again, while not being openly spoken about. think how aligned Ben Mee's "that is not what we are about" interview at the Ethihad post match and the Burnley Fans organising themselves to promote an anti-hate message.
Is this just another local marketing slogan or is it part of re-branding? If it is re-branding where does the end lie, are we going to be like St Pauli, Union Berlin or even Clapton in the 11th tier of English football (you should look them all up fascinating stories some of which I have featured on this thread). It is a long way form the current perception of us. The restart also saw some interesting banners around the ground including an LGBT one, those kinds of messages are certainly new to the majority of fans and fit right in with the ethos of the clubs I have just mentioned. But does it, should it fit in with what the club's brand should be. One thing I do know is that a brand has to evolve while maintaining it's core values, I for one can see how this current messaging fit's in with the perceptions long held of our club@
this is interesting - a article championing our badge https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2015/1/ ... ier-league
a Man Utd fan on the growing admiration for our club https://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/a ... burnley-fc
a recent YouGov survey on how Burnley FC is perceived https://yougov.co.uk/topics/sport/explo ... urnley_F_C
The underdog, always punching above their weight - Tifo podcast on "How do you value a Football's club brand" from 23:30 in https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/h ... 0447302603
The same things come up all the time:
- Hard working
- Determined
- Committed
- Distinctive style
- Talented
We can then add to that a widely held notion of Burnley FC being the best run club (financially at least) in the Premier League, owned by life long fans (who view themselves as custodian's and whose primary aim is to leave the club in a stronger more stable position than when they arrived), free from debt, one that continues to develop from incomes it has generated and always within it's means. The proud boast of fans is now "Built not Bought".
Tell me if those perceptions do not sound a lot like "Pretiumque Et Causa Laboris", when we add the latest messaging we can be seen as a club moving forward, living it's "togetherness/inclusion values" while always acknowledging it's past.
We have a brand, many of us (me included) will struggle to articulate it, but we do seem to live it having been infected with it by osmosis - I just hope that whoever gets that Head of Global Partnerships role has a very clear (and aligned ) perception of what it is.
One note of caution is that I for one see a conflict between our caring and sharing, moral stance approach with that of Gambling sponsorship - I hope we can move away from that asap and preferably before the law forces us too.
This user liked this post: Royboyclaret
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Following this shock, It has come to light that Richard Masters actually met with representatives of Newcastle United Supporters Trust yesterday - the came away quite happy with what they heard - though it is nothing new to the interested observer - from the MAilChester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:24 pmthe Premier League have responded to a letter from an MP to give some reasons in the proposed Saudi bid
Premier League break silence on Newcastle United takeover in letter to MP
Richard Masters has written to Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah in reply to her letter over the collapsed deal
ByLee RyderChief Newcastle United Writer - 15:21, 14 AUG 2020UPDATED16:26, 14 AUG 2020
Premier League supremo Richard Masters has broken his silence on Newcastle United's takeover collapse - and insisted that the Middle East consortium made a decision to withdraw their bid.
After claims that Amanda Staveley, the Reuben brothers and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund turned down the chance of an arbitration tribunal in the morning papers, Masters has now confirmed that top-flight chiefs were happy to proceed with the owners and directors test.
In a letter to Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah, Masters said: “In June, the Premier League board made a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition, in accordance with the Premier League rules.
“Subsequently, the Premier League then asked each such person or entity to provide the Premier League with additional information, which would then have been used to consider the assessment of any possible disqualifying events.
“In this matter, the consortium disagreed with the Premier League’s determination that one entity would fall within the criteria requiring the provision of this information.
“The Premier League recognised this dispute and offered the consortium the ability to have the matter determined by an independent arbitral tribunal if it wished to challenge the conclusion of the board.
He said: “The owners’ and directors’ test is delegated to and carried out entirely by the Premier League Board. Other member clubs have no role whatsoever in the approval process.”
Masters was also apologetic in some ways for the delay in responding.
He added: "I fully appreciate that the issue of a potential change in the ownership of Newcastle United Football Club (NUFC) is of great importance to you, as the MP for the area and as a fan, as it is to NUFC's entire fanbase, and I would like to deal directly with the questions you raise."
Premier League chief Richard Masters rejects accusations from Saudi-led consortium that other top-flight clubs played a part in collapse of £300m takeover of Newcastle
- Richard Masters told NUST that the 'door is still open' for the takeover to happen
- A £300m deal to buy the club collapsed over a dispute who would run the club
- Premier League wished to make plain the link between club and Saudi Arabia
By CRAIG HOPE FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 17:24, 20 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:39, 20 August 2020
The Premier League has rejected accusations from Amanda Staveley’s Saudi-led consortium that outside influence played a part in the collapse of their Newcastle takeover.
The proposed buyers had indicated that clubs such as Liverpool and Spurs were in opposition to the deal following their decision to withdraw from the process two weeks ago.
But top-flight chief Richard Masters has told members of the Newcastle United Supporters Trust that was not the case, and has defended the Owners and Directors test.
Masters also said that Staveley and the Saudis were never told there were no ‘red flags’ during the process and rejected the buyers’ claims that the tests should have taken four weeks.
The NUST – who had a 30-minute audience with Masters as he answered questions on the takeover – now say it is over to Staveley and the Saudis if they want to buy the club.
The would-be buyers walked away from the deal after rejecting the League’s offer of arbitration, but Masters says their withdrawal was never communicated to the League and the onus is on them if they want to return to the process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is much more to be found in the Newcastle local press but their pages are truly horrible to post from
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Following the news earlier today that there will be an extra 20 Premier League games on TV in the domestic market this season, it transpires that this is because these were offered for free - there could have been more but the broadcasters baulked at the asking price - from the Mail. It is being portrayed as bad news for fans but is a sensible move by the clubs as they seek to preserve value for future rights sales.
Premier League clubs risk wrath of their own fans as they price themselves out of a deal to air EVERY match live until stadiums return to full capacity after demanding additional fees for extra TV games
- Top flight clubs have priced themselves out of a deal to all matches televised live
- The deal would have been in place until the Government allowed fans to return
- Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon will show an extra 20 matches next season
- However, Sportsmail understands there was interest to show even more games
By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 20 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:47, 20 August 2020
Premier League clubs have risked the wrath of their own fans by pricing themselves out of a deal that could have seen all matches televised live until the Government sanctions a return to full capacity stadiums.
Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime will show an extra 20 matches next season, but Sportsmail understands there was interest from the broadcasters in showing even more games, as they did during Project Restart.
However, during initial talks the clubs made it clear that they would demand additional rights fees for the privilege so the negotiations never got off the ground.
Sky, BT and Amazon have committed more than £5billion for live Premier League rights over three seasons and were not willing to spend any more to secure additional fixtures at a time of such financial uncertainty.
As a result fans will be unable to watch some of their club’s matches until at least October 3, the earliest point in the fixture list at which supporters will be allowed into stadiums — and even then capacity will be restricted to between 20 and 30 per cent.
As Sportsmail revealed earlier this week, the clubs also opted against exploring the possibility of streaming games on their websites to season-ticket holders, despite calls from West Ham and Crystal Palace for them to do so.
The one concession made by the clubs was to grant an additional 20 matches to the broadcasters, as revealed by MailOnline in advance of Thursday’s fixture publication, a move undertaken to compensate rights holders for the loss of four lucrative weekend slots in the truncated season.
Sky will get an extra 12 games, with six going to BT Sport and two to Amazon, taking the number of matches to be televised next season to 220.
The agreement over extra matches has been designed to prevent the need for further talks over another rebate, which Sky in particular could have pushed for given the loss of several of the most coveted Super Sunday slots.
Sky secured a £330m rebate from the Premier League, which will be paid over the next two seasons, for the loss of matches for three months during lockdown and the clubs were extremely reluctant to cede any more ground.
In addition to securing extra games, the rights holders have managed another victory by ensuring that no matches will be made available free-to-air next season.
During Project Restart the Premier League bowed to pressure from the Government to make live games more widely available by gifting four matches to the BBC, despite the fact they did not have any live rights, while others were shown on Sky’s free-to-air channel, Sky Pick.
There will be no matches televised at 3pm on Saturday afternoons, however, despite UEFA removing broadcasting restrictions by suspending Article 48 during lockdown.
The TV selections for the early round of games will be announced next week following talks between the broadcasters.
With fewer weekends available there will be two additional midweek programmes next season — one will be played across the weeks commencing January 11 and 18 and the second will be in the week starting May 10. All of those games will be broadcast live.
Premier League clubs risk wrath of their own fans as they price themselves out of a deal to air EVERY match live until stadiums return to full capacity after demanding additional fees for extra TV games
- Top flight clubs have priced themselves out of a deal to all matches televised live
- The deal would have been in place until the Government allowed fans to return
- Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon will show an extra 20 matches next season
- However, Sportsmail understands there was interest to show even more games
By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 20 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:47, 20 August 2020
Premier League clubs have risked the wrath of their own fans by pricing themselves out of a deal that could have seen all matches televised live until the Government sanctions a return to full capacity stadiums.
Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime will show an extra 20 matches next season, but Sportsmail understands there was interest from the broadcasters in showing even more games, as they did during Project Restart.
However, during initial talks the clubs made it clear that they would demand additional rights fees for the privilege so the negotiations never got off the ground.
Sky, BT and Amazon have committed more than £5billion for live Premier League rights over three seasons and were not willing to spend any more to secure additional fixtures at a time of such financial uncertainty.
As a result fans will be unable to watch some of their club’s matches until at least October 3, the earliest point in the fixture list at which supporters will be allowed into stadiums — and even then capacity will be restricted to between 20 and 30 per cent.
As Sportsmail revealed earlier this week, the clubs also opted against exploring the possibility of streaming games on their websites to season-ticket holders, despite calls from West Ham and Crystal Palace for them to do so.
The one concession made by the clubs was to grant an additional 20 matches to the broadcasters, as revealed by MailOnline in advance of Thursday’s fixture publication, a move undertaken to compensate rights holders for the loss of four lucrative weekend slots in the truncated season.
Sky will get an extra 12 games, with six going to BT Sport and two to Amazon, taking the number of matches to be televised next season to 220.
The agreement over extra matches has been designed to prevent the need for further talks over another rebate, which Sky in particular could have pushed for given the loss of several of the most coveted Super Sunday slots.
Sky secured a £330m rebate from the Premier League, which will be paid over the next two seasons, for the loss of matches for three months during lockdown and the clubs were extremely reluctant to cede any more ground.
In addition to securing extra games, the rights holders have managed another victory by ensuring that no matches will be made available free-to-air next season.
During Project Restart the Premier League bowed to pressure from the Government to make live games more widely available by gifting four matches to the BBC, despite the fact they did not have any live rights, while others were shown on Sky’s free-to-air channel, Sky Pick.
There will be no matches televised at 3pm on Saturday afternoons, however, despite UEFA removing broadcasting restrictions by suspending Article 48 during lockdown.
The TV selections for the early round of games will be announced next week following talks between the broadcasters.
With fewer weekends available there will be two additional midweek programmes next season — one will be played across the weeks commencing January 11 and 18 and the second will be in the week starting May 10. All of those games will be broadcast live.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
following this and the other charges recently heard against Derby - there are now calls for the clubs Chief Exec to be removed from the EFL's board (also for Reading's too) seems logical to me, though there is very little actual detail in the piece - from the MailChester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:32 pmSeems Derby are about to have this loan investigated following a number of complaints from other Championship clubs (Steve Gibson anyone?) - from the Mail
Derby County set for ANOTHER inquiry into alleged breaches of EFL rules as club faces threat of multiple points deductions over £80m sale of Pride Park and £30m loan from equity firm
- Several clubs have complained about a loan made to Derby by MSD UK Holdings
- The club could face relegation should they be hit with multiple points penalties
- EFL regulations ban clubs from losing more than £39m over a three-year period
- Derby are already anticipating a verdict relating to a charge regarding Pride Park
By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:31, 19 August 2020 | UPDATED: 09:10, 20 August 2020
Derby County could face another investigation into an alleged breach of EFL rules after several clubs complained to the Board about a loan undertaken from MSD UK Holdings Limited on the grounds it has created a conflict of interest.
As previously revealed by Sportsmail, the Championship club borrowed around £30million from Michael Dell's private equity firm earlier this year 12 months after Sunderland took out a similar loan from American billionaire's hedge fund, leading other clubs to claim they have broken EFL regulations.
Derby are expecting a verdict imminently from the independent panel convened by the EFL into their alleged breach of spending rules, and could do without a renewed focus on their financial practices.
The existing charge relates to Derby's sale of Pride Park to a company owned by chairman Mel Morris for £80m, as well as their unusual method of valuing their players for accounting purposes, which could lead to them being docked 12 points next season.
Derby would face almost certain relegation from the Championship if hit with multiple points deductions, but will receive little sympathy from some of their rivals who are convinced they have been using creative accounting to get round the EFL's profit and sustainability rules, which prohibit clubs from losing more than £39m over a three-year period.
Sportsmail has learned that several clubs have contacted the EFL demanding clarification on the loan from MSD UK Holdings, that was confirmed in documents lodged at Companies House earlier this month, which they claim is a breach of the regulations.
The EFL rules make clear that third party investment in multiple clubs is not permitted, other than lending facilities provided by commercial banks. Section 10 regulation 105.1 of the EFL rulebook states that 'except with the prior written consent of the Board a person, or an associate of that person, who is interested in a club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club.'
Regulation 106.5 goes on to clarify that it is the responsibility of the clubs to ensure that a person who lends money 'other than in the ordinary course of banking… shall not be acting in such a manner as to cause a breach of any Regulation, and in particular Regulations 104 to 108, and failure to do so shall constitute misconduct.'
The complainants' contention is that Derby's loan is not 'in the ordinary course of banking' as MSD are not registered with the banking regulator, unlike other equity houses such as the Macquarie Group and Shawbrook Bank, who also provide funding to football clubs.
MSD also provided a loan in the region of £80m to Southampton last month, although as they are not involved with any other Premier League clubs there is no question of that breaching regulations.
Southampton sources described the MSD borrowing as a 'bridging loan' which replaced a previous lending facility with Macquarie, which was not renewed.
The Derby complaint is a matter for the EFL Board, who have the power to approve the loan of investigate further. Regulation 112 of the EFL rules gives the Board the authority to relax some of its provisions if it is deemed to be appropriate.
The EFL and Derby declined to comment.
EFL under pressure to remove Derby County CEO Stephen Pearce from the board after Rams were charged with misconduct over the sale of Pride Park
- Derby County were charged with misconduct over the sale of Pride Park
- Rams CEO Stephen Pearce is an EFL Board member and is part of the sanctioning
- Other EFL clubs believe there Pearce's involvement is a conflict of interest
- The presence of Reading CEO Nigel Howe on the board is also questioned
By MATT HUGHES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 20 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:37, 20 August 2020
The EFL are facing calls from clubs to remove Derby chief executive Stephen Pearce from their board due to potential conflicts of interest in their disciplinary process.
Pearce is one of three Championship representatives on the nine-strong EFL Board, who have charged Derby with misconduct over the sale of Pride Park and are now under pressure to open another investigation into the club regarding a £30million loan from MSD Holdings, as revealed by Sportsmail yesterday.
A number of executives at other clubs are understood to have lobbied the EFL that Pearce’s presence on the board is untenable in such circumstances as his role is to uphold rules his club are alleged to have broken and they are considering whether to begin a formal process to engineer his removal.
‘It’s not personal but this is poor governance,’ one executive told Sportsmail. ‘Stephen is a very nice guy and able administrator but even he must acknowledge the conflict of interest issue, even if it’s just perception.’
The presence of Reading chief executive Nigel Howe on the board has also been questioned as they have also been the subject of an EFL investigation into the sale of their stadium, although they have yet to be charged.
The calls for another investigation into Derby’s finances follow Sportsmail’s revelation earlier this summer that they have borrowed around £30m from MSD, which other clubs claim is a breach of EFL regulation 105 as the American private equity firm have previously lent money to Sunderland.
There is also a feeling at some clubs that the loan is against the spirit of the rules even if it is ultimately signed off by the EFL board.
This belief stems from the fact that the loan has been secured against an asset they do not own in Pride Park, which was sold last year to a company controlled by Derby owner Mel Morris, which led to the initial EFL charge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see quite a lot of PSG style play with UEFA in Derby and the EFL I must say
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Remeber this
Barnsley FC board divided over monies owed following sale of club
THE Cryne family insist that they have been forced into taking legal action against the majority shareholders of Barnsley Football Club for payment of £2.75m as ‘a last resort’, after failing to receive monies owed following the sale of the club in December 2017.
By Leon Wobschall
Wednesday, 19th August 2020, 5:29 pm
The Cryne family have issued a response via their solicitors Knights plc to a statement released on the club’s website on Tuesday afternoon and have stressed that they have been forced into taking the action against Hong-Kong based BFC Investment Company, who own 80 per cent of the club.
They state that the decision has been taken with ‘huge reluctance and great regret’ to recover deferred payments owed.
The statement also dismissed suggestions on the Reds website that the Cryne family were refusing to sell 50 per cent of Oakwell after the club’s majority shareholders – including co-chairmen Paul Conway and Chien Lee – obtained an option as part of BFC Investment Company’s takeover.
It claimed that a third party had sought to enforce their own option to purchase half of Oakwell.
The Cryne family claim that the situation regarding Oakwell is a totally separate issue to the outstanding monies owed following the club’s sale.
A statement read: “It was agreed at the time (of sale – December 2017) that some of the purchase price could be deferred and paid in instalments.
“In April 2019, Hong Kong company BFC Investment Company asked the Cryne family for a reduction in the price and for longer to pay the deferred element. The Cryne family agreed to reduce the price substantially, and to grant longer payment terms.
“Payments due in early 2020 were still not paid and despite further time being allowed, £2,750,000 is still owed to Oakwell (Oakwell Holdings Limited, the family’s company). The failure to pay occurred before the current Covid-19 crisis.
“Despite requesting payment from the Hong Kong company several times, payment has still not been forthcoming and with huge reluctance and great regret, Oakwell has been forced to issue a claim in the High Court to recover those monies due.
“It is hoped that the matter can be resolved before the claim progresses much further but the Hong Kong company are yet to submit any defence to the claim.
“The Cryne family has remained stalwart in their support for the club. Throughout the Covid-19 crisis, the Cryne family has not taken any rent from the club and James Cryne, who is employed by the club, has forgone his salary. Their commitment to the club remains absolute but they feel they have no choice but to take steps in circumstances where they have not been paid in accordance with the contract of sale.
“It is with great regret that as a last resort, the family has instructed Knights to take court action on its behalf.”
In their own statement on the club’s website, the club’s majority shareholders pledged to ‘vigorously defend’ themselves.
It read: “The club will vigorously defend the claims, and its legitimate interests in respect of the (Oakwell) option and intend to aggressively prosecute the club’s own claims by whatever means necessary and in the strongest possible terms.
“The club has had a hard battle on and off the field in the last six months.
“It has fought through Covid-19, governance issues in the EFL and tough opponents on the field to remain in the Championship.
“The club will continue to fight these battles in the interests of its supporters and its long-term future by all means necessary. Since investing in the club in 2017, the new investors have not withdrawn £1 from the club and received no compensation as Board members.
“The club want to reassure our supporters that we will fight this litigation and continue to grow the club in a proper way.”
Not looking quite so well argued when you read this in the Yorkshire Evening PostChester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:14 pmStrong Statement from Barnsley yesterday in the clubs official website - calling out the EFL and clubs who do not pay transfer fees on time (or even a year late but still operate in the same league as them
Fair play I say
------------------------------------------
The 2019/2020 season has been fraught with tribulation on and off the field. Through it all, our staff, players, supporters and community have continued to believe and fight, side by side. Foremost, this is a statement of sincere gratitude to those who pushed themselves for the betterment of our Club. To our squad, led by Gerhard and his staff, thank you for your desire and passion to battle to the bitter end. We look forward to a bright future with this group in continuing the pursuit of competitive growth, as a Sky Bet Championship Club.
Not enough can be said about the commitment of Club personnel and those key workers that allowed us to return to play. Barnsley Football Club is indebted to your service. Most importantly, to our supporters and the Barnsley community, your steadfast care for this Club should never be forgotten. In the toughest of times, in a world unseen, our supporters were there for their Club.
In the end we persevered to remain in the Championship. There are a host of reasons why Barnsley Football Club took the fight for safety to the last day. Mistakes made internally and on the field; a bad bounce or run of luck. As a Club, we accept the challenges of 19/20 that were our own and we must subjectively assess our performance.
What Barnsley Football Club cannot accept is the blatant disregard for sporting/competitive integrity and the lack of governance in our division.
Clubs were charged with breaching rules surrounding Financial Fair Play and harming the EFL and its members. One ownership group, (which was approved by the EFL), failed in their duty to provide the requisite support to their respective Championship organisation. One other ownership group completed a takeover and provided funding to a Club without ever being approved by the EFL to become owners of that Club. Another competitor has yet to pay a transfer fee to Barnsley Football Club that was due in August of 2019. Several clubs have been delinquent in payment to contracted players.
We ask, where is the competitive balance?
Our Club, on a substantially smaller budget, has paid every professional player under contract 100% of their wages this season, one of the few Sky Bet Championship clubs to do so.
It is clear that there has to be a change to the system. Just as our coaching staff, players, Club employees, and supporters have fought this season, so too will your Club continue the fight by all means necessary.
Barnsley FC board divided over monies owed following sale of club
THE Cryne family insist that they have been forced into taking legal action against the majority shareholders of Barnsley Football Club for payment of £2.75m as ‘a last resort’, after failing to receive monies owed following the sale of the club in December 2017.
By Leon Wobschall
Wednesday, 19th August 2020, 5:29 pm
The Cryne family have issued a response via their solicitors Knights plc to a statement released on the club’s website on Tuesday afternoon and have stressed that they have been forced into taking the action against Hong-Kong based BFC Investment Company, who own 80 per cent of the club.
They state that the decision has been taken with ‘huge reluctance and great regret’ to recover deferred payments owed.
The statement also dismissed suggestions on the Reds website that the Cryne family were refusing to sell 50 per cent of Oakwell after the club’s majority shareholders – including co-chairmen Paul Conway and Chien Lee – obtained an option as part of BFC Investment Company’s takeover.
It claimed that a third party had sought to enforce their own option to purchase half of Oakwell.
The Cryne family claim that the situation regarding Oakwell is a totally separate issue to the outstanding monies owed following the club’s sale.
A statement read: “It was agreed at the time (of sale – December 2017) that some of the purchase price could be deferred and paid in instalments.
“In April 2019, Hong Kong company BFC Investment Company asked the Cryne family for a reduction in the price and for longer to pay the deferred element. The Cryne family agreed to reduce the price substantially, and to grant longer payment terms.
“Payments due in early 2020 were still not paid and despite further time being allowed, £2,750,000 is still owed to Oakwell (Oakwell Holdings Limited, the family’s company). The failure to pay occurred before the current Covid-19 crisis.
“Despite requesting payment from the Hong Kong company several times, payment has still not been forthcoming and with huge reluctance and great regret, Oakwell has been forced to issue a claim in the High Court to recover those monies due.
“It is hoped that the matter can be resolved before the claim progresses much further but the Hong Kong company are yet to submit any defence to the claim.
“The Cryne family has remained stalwart in their support for the club. Throughout the Covid-19 crisis, the Cryne family has not taken any rent from the club and James Cryne, who is employed by the club, has forgone his salary. Their commitment to the club remains absolute but they feel they have no choice but to take steps in circumstances where they have not been paid in accordance with the contract of sale.
“It is with great regret that as a last resort, the family has instructed Knights to take court action on its behalf.”
In their own statement on the club’s website, the club’s majority shareholders pledged to ‘vigorously defend’ themselves.
It read: “The club will vigorously defend the claims, and its legitimate interests in respect of the (Oakwell) option and intend to aggressively prosecute the club’s own claims by whatever means necessary and in the strongest possible terms.
“The club has had a hard battle on and off the field in the last six months.
“It has fought through Covid-19, governance issues in the EFL and tough opponents on the field to remain in the Championship.
“The club will continue to fight these battles in the interests of its supporters and its long-term future by all means necessary. Since investing in the club in 2017, the new investors have not withdrawn £1 from the club and received no compensation as Board members.
“The club want to reassure our supporters that we will fight this litigation and continue to grow the club in a proper way.”