Football's Magic Money Tree

[MrTopTier]

Thanks for that Chester, remember reading that and thinking of all the rubbish they had gone through already and then to be landed with another set of dubious owners.Added to that now the Bassini link I feel for Charlton fans, although I believe Bassini still has an interest in Bolton as well. Agree the guy needs help,staying away from football ownership would be a start.

[Chester Perry]

Appreciate your point is referencing next season but hasn’t the government already said they would like some of this seasons PL live free to air? The thinking on this might have changed now they want people back to work.
Would that then affect the current deals?

The point I was making was that Sky were prepared to do the deal even though they had the rights, I thought it was significant that it was done with the highlights broadcaster (who also happened to own a package for live Sunday matches).

Key elements for the Premier League and the domestic broadcasters are - Government Pressure for public access, no Saturday 3 pm block for "Ghost game" periods of operation (ratified by the Government and UEFA) though more particularly preservation of rights values and income streams.

The Austrian approach would allow for a national public service broadcaster to show a live game at 3pm on a Saturday, the match selection coming after both Sky and BT having made their match selections. That would allow them to maximise their revenues from their broadcasts. Payment could be made to Sky/BT or direct to the Premier League, the Premier League having already discounted to Sky and BT (Remember Amazon just have two complete rounds of mid week games).

I am pretty sure the government would want free to access football through the whole period fans are barred from attending

[Chester Perry]

LawinSport.com held a virtual conference this week on Football Law - some of the discussions have been made publicly available - this one on "Football Player’s Rights: Return to Play Policies & Duty of Care" seems rather pertinent at the moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPEnVNB ... e=youtu.be

It is absolutely choc full of highly relevant points

[Chester Perry]

That Manchester United quarterly update is making the headlines as predicted

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... id-19.html

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... oronavirus

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/manches ... 30-million

I have to say I was hoping for much more info than that on the impact of the pause and the ghost games

this is a bit better

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... d-18288587

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... 1005296/en

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... -programme

You have to say that that is a large drop in revenue for just 2 weeks of lost activity in the quarter, they must have been heading for a loss anyhow

We are now clearer that the tv refund is £15m on a sliding scale from league position.

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1 ... 6131163139

The good news is that if that is the total liability then we are likely to maintain a sizeable portion of our cash position when the next season payments kick-in, though that may not be clear in the accounts as schedules change.

There is also the prospect of similar reductions next season if it's a ghost season

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1 ... 4188603392

EDIT Though Simon Stone has a different interpretation of refunds in this article he has produced - which one is it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52759246

This is interesting in terms of a gauge of where clubs are at in terms of their cash operations,

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1 ... 4152785921

especially as it is about Man Utd who some observers still believe are in a very strong position relatively

https://twitter.com/terryflewers/status ... 3858384897

EDIT So to be clear - Utd have used up all their available cash, are now using their overdraft to pay wages and other costs, have exercised the Chancellor's invitation to defer almost £11m of VAT for a year, and having paid a dividend during the 3rd quarter have committed to pay another scheduled dividend on the 3rd of June

[Chester Perry]

LawinSport.com held a virtual conference this week on Football Law - some of the discussions have been made publicly available - this one on "Football Player’s Rights: Return to Play Policies & Duty of Care" seems rather pertinent at the moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPEnVNB ... e=youtu.be

It is absolutely choc full of highly relevant points

One of the things this has got me thinking about is how are the academies going to run - is the game going to lose a generation because of no access to training/coaching - even at youth level how can that be managed and continued.

[Chester Perry]

LawinSport.com held a virtual conference this week on Football Law - some of the discussions have been made publicly available - this one on "Football Player’s Rights: Return to Play Policies & Duty of Care" seems rather pertinent at the moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPEnVNB ... e=youtu.be

It is absolutely choc full of highly relevant points

moved from this to this - Darragh MacAnthony is being extremely coercive as an employer here in the first 14 minutes - never mind his arguments for completing the season

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/e ... 0475447847

He remains certain of his convictions, which makes his point interesting to hear, I just find it difficult to agree not least because he continues to dismiss other opinions also the level of forcefulness bordering on aggression with which he delivers them.

[Chester Perry]

One of the things this has got me thinking about is how are the academies going to run - is the game going to lose a generation because of no access to training/coaching - even at youth level how can that be managed and continued.

As if by magic - this article appears in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... s-in-limbo

[Chester Perry]

So I read this in the New York Times last week - yeah that is fine but no need to share

The Bundesliga Is Back. So Why Isn’t Your League?
The return of matches is not so much proof of German soccer’s greed or its smooth running as it is a testament to a broader political reality.

By Rory Smith - May 15, 2020

Every morning, when Bayer Leverkusen’s players wake up in the hotel requisitioned for their weeklong quarantine, they have a list of six questions to answer. They must tell the club how they slept, how they are feeling, whether any of the tell tale symptoms of the coronavirus have set in overnight.

Once they have answered satisfactorily, the players eat breakfast — on their own — and head to the club’s training facility. Before entering, they have their body temperatures assessed by a scanner, in case anyone is running an undetected fever.

Once they pass that entrance exam, they head to the changing room: not the communal one, the one they would ordinarily use, but one they share with only a couple of teammates. They do not need to worry about showering afterward. The instructions on that are clear, too. They are to wash up back in their rooms at the hotel.

For all of the players, as it is for everyone involved in the reopening of the Bundesliga this weekend, this is uncharted territory. It is 65 days since the Bundesliga went into hibernation, along with every other major sports league on the planet. On Saturday, at 3:30 p.m. local time, it plans to become the first major league back, the first high-profile competition in any sport in the age of coronavirus.

Even now, even when the return is so close, it feels like a delicate, fragile thing, one that could yet be derailed at the very last moment by a raft of positive tests, by an uptick in Germany’s infection rate, by a change of heart by the government. Those involved in bringing the league to this point know how hard it has been to pick a way through when there is no map to use as a guide.

“It has been a lot of work, and a lot of unusual work,” said Simon Rolfes, Leverkusen’s sporting director. “We planned for the start, and then everything changes in three days, and the league gives some new advice: the plans get more detailed, more precise.” Planning, he said, started in earnest four weeks ago. “But four weeks, now, feels like a year or two,” he said.

That the Bundesliga has managed to get this close — closer than any of its peers — is rooted, to some extent, in the league’s sense of purpose, its unified vision, its leadership.

Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, Bayern Munich’s chairman, argued that the “good collaboration” between teams had helped the league identify a “clear concept” for its return. Rolfes was quick to credit the role that Christian Seifert, the Bundesliga’s chief executive, had played in helping craft a solution. The players, meanwhile, are largely content with the arrangements.

“We have had one or two who are a bit concerned,” Rolfes said. “That is natural. But they feel safe here. A lot of them are glad to be in Germany. They feel the club will take care of them.”

To some people — perhaps to many — that will feel trite, almost venal, under the circumstances. Now, after all, is not necessarily the time for games. It is too early, too soon, for soccer to be played again, while a global pandemic still rages, while the death toll continues to mount. There are plenty, including many of Germany’s organized fan groups, who believe the Bundesliga has hurried back with money as its only motivation.

That is not, in fairness, entirely wrong. “As an industry, we will have big financial problems not only this season but in the next seasons, too,” Rummenigge said. “The loss of ticketing, of corporate partners, of sponsors — it will have a huge impact, and maybe one the big clubs should worry about the most.” The Bundesliga has, without question, been driven by a desire to staunch those losses as much as possible.

By returning first, it has turned a problem into an opportunity. The Bundesliga has, for many years, sought to end the primacy of England’s Premier League in soccer’s global landscape.

Its clubs have opened offices across the world, trying to pry open new markets and improve their commercial performance. It has proved adept and innovative at managing its broadcasting arrangements. (At one time, the Bundesliga received more than one sotto voce rebuke from the Premier League, the single most marketed product in history, about what the latter perceived to be the Bundesliga’s undignified attempts to raise its profile in Britain.)

Now, it has that chance. “There is an advantage of being the first back,” Rummenigge said. The Bundesliga is not back as it would wish to be, of course — there will be no fans in the stadiums, robbing the league of its atmosphere — but still: This weekend, and for a few weekends yet, the eyes of the world will be on Germany.

Tempting as that narrative is, it does not quite tell the whole story. Yes, the Bundesliga is thinking about money, but not out of individual acquisitiveness so much as out of collective fear. As Rummenigge put it: The hiatus made it inevitable that German soccer would face a crisis. The league’s returning is simply a way to avert disaster.

But most important, the return of the Bundesliga is not so much proof of German soccer’s greed or its smooth running as it is a testament to a broader political reality. “We can be the first to start again because of our health care system,” Rolfes said. “We are thankful to have the opportunity.”

Rummenigge lays much of the credit for the Bundesliga’s return at the door of Germany’s government. “We have to say thank you to our politicians,” he said. It is only because of the decisions they have made, in his mind, that the impact of the virus was limited and that soccer was in a position even to contemplate its return.

Germany, after all, has recorded a quarter of the deaths that Britain has, despite a larger population, and a tenth of the total in the United States. It was among the first European countries to start lifting stringent lockdown restrictions, and some version of normal life is at least visible there in a way that it is not, say, in either Britain or the United States.

It is worth considering that as you settle in to watch top-flight soccer for the first time in 65 days. Perhaps you feel that the Bundesliga has come back too soon. Perhaps you fear there will be a raft of infections, and the curtain will have to fall again.

Or, perhaps, you will feel that soccer, and sports in general, is possible in the age of coronavirus. Instead of wondering if the Germans have been too quick, it is worth wondering why governments elsewhere seemed to be so slow. Perhaps, instead of feeling the Germans have not waited enough, we should ask our politicians why we have to wait so long.

Laced into the endless, intractable debate over when, if and how soccer should return in places other than Germany is a deep-rooted, pernicious sort of a presumption, the kind that for some reason is allowed to build its nest in otherwise right-thinking minds. It is the idea that soccer fans are a danger to themselves and others.

The logic is this: Back in March, fans of Paris St.-Germain and Valencia gathered by the thousands outside their teams’ stadiums, where Champions League matches were being held behind closed doors. This was held up as proof that, whenever and wherever soccer is next played, it is all but certain that fans of some, or all, teams will inevitably do the same, putting their lives, the lives of their families, and society as a whole, at risk.

In England, at least, everyone from city mayors to police chiefs has promoted some version of this idea. They have not mentioned the rather salient fact that the world has changed markedly since the last time teams played; that whole countries have grown used to being in lockdown; that social distancing has, for most of us, seeped into second nature.

Mostly, though, they seem to have forgotten that soccer fans are, well, just people. A minority might believe the rules do not apply to them, of course, just as a small minority did not seem to realize that the parks were closed or the beaches shut or that they were not allowed to make armed visits to government buildings.

But the majority? The majority are like you. The majority, in fact, are you. And, as this excellent Twitter thread from my old boss — in a previous life — makes clear, that means we really need to ask just one question. Would you do it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then this weekend Simon Chadwick put out this thread about the exercise of control in China

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 8449507328

and I read this about how every Government bar the US and UK has being buying up and repatriating gold reserves in recent years

https://theconversation.com/countries-w ... why-138173

and yesterday the Spanish Prime Minister announced that Football could restart very quickly

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52783201

which reminded me of this Spanish football unites on plan

The different Spanish football authorities have come together with a plan with apparent exit velocity from the Pandemic (there is a global audience to woo and pull away from the Premier League)

https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/span ... asterplan/

The cynic in me says that the bid for the 2030 World Cup shows that Barcelona and Real Madrid have found a way of getting state funding for those hugely expensive stadium redevelopment projects they have been trying to get off the ground for some time.

Of course there is a problem with world cup bids (witness the fall out of Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022), my bet is on these guys

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 9895542784

and this French football to get government guaranteed loan

The French Ligue are negotiating a State guaranteed loan for £uro 162m - roughly the shortfall amount of those cancelled TV deals

https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2 ... overnment/

the key is the State guarantee - if the clubs don't pay it back the government will. While that is effectively what is happening for a lot of British companies - you just cannot see it happening in football

as do the Swiss

The Swiss join the French in offering state backed loans to the countries League clubs

https://twitter.com/CIESsportsintel/sta ... 0253825025

While we have this

you can watch Rick Parry speak to the DCMS here from 09:33:00 to 10:16:20 - I recommend that you do

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0 ... 484cf25b69

some interesting stuff - though he should look at the camera - reports on this have been focusing on the estimated £200m loss

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52543735

other things he had to say - parachute payments etc has had a positive impact on some

https://twitter.com/AndyhHolt/status/12 ... 3670760448

https://twitter.com/AndyhHolt/status/12 ... 1240663040

what Parry said that made Holt so happy https://twitter.com/RobHarris/status/12 ... 3754954752

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&p=1268815&hilit=dcms#p1268815

and this

As ever Simon Chadwick makes a connection that reflects clearly on what we are seeing from the sports/football authorities

“Policymakers seem to be making decisions quickly and without a clear or transparent procedure"

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4344272897

the linked article is well worth a read though it doesn't mention sport at all.

you only have to read something like this about Troy Deeney to see the point is well made

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52721397

or this - Premier League/EFL not consulting own medical staff

https://twitter.com/stevescott_itv/stat ... 9750973440

There are plenty more examples (but I am conscious that my posts can be 3 weeks long )

Basically as a Nation we no longer seem to have a unifying plan for anything (and I am not wanting to be political about this) we seem to be the only ones without a unified approach to football and it is directly impacting the game and it's commercial strength, and that has a direct impact on our club

[Chester Perry]

and to underline the point here is Huddersfield Town owner Phil Hodgkinson

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52790371

[Chester Perry]

But hey the expectation still is that the Premier League will bail the game out even though it has no money for itself

https://twitter.com/uglygame/status/1264633670763241482

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1264643313887576067

[Chester Perry]

The Football Today Podcast looks at the CVC Capital proposed deal with Serie A and asks "Can you buy a league?"

https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... th-serie-a

[Chester Perry]

This is interesting in terms of a gauge of where clubs are at in terms of their cash operations,

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1 ... 4152785921

especially as it is about Man Utd who some observers still believe are in a very strong position relatively

https://twitter.com/terryflewers/status ... 3858384897

EDIT So to be clear - Utd have used up all their available cash, are now using their overdraft to pay wages and other costs, have exercised the Chancellor's invitation to defer almost £11m of VAT for a year, and having paid a dividend during the 3rd quarter have committed to pay another scheduled dividend on the 3rd of June

@SwissRamble looks at those Man Utd Q3 results

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 5282286592

[Chester Perry]

Tranmere Rovers look like they are heading for relegation on a PPG basis - This is a club who have consistently followed a strategy under it's current ownership of spreading it's spend across the season and strengthening in the January window which has shown a distinct uptick in points return each season - they were on a 3 game winning run when the season paused.

Some fans have done an analysis of PPG for every season with the same pause point of March 13th - the difference in actual outcome and those that PPG offer are stark.

https://www.roversrearguard.com/news/pp ... king-ball/

It is the kind of stuff the lawyers love.

[Chester Perry]

Interesting white paper that you can down load (you have to register) from @infront on - Sports behind closed doors: Broadcasting, venue advertising & fan engagement in a post-lockdown world

here is their press release from which their is a link to the download

https://blog.infront.sport/broadcasting ... e=linkedin

Key conclusions

- For Rights Holders there is an opportunity to own the resurgent sports market as one of the “first movers” back to live sports, and to mitigate ticketing, hospitality, marketing or merchandising losses by innovating with new engagement tools and inventory, filling the void for fans and discovering new markets. This unique scenario offers a moment to “fast track” the otherwise costly, longterm development of digital communities through exclusive “fan at home” experiences, esports, content and solutions that can be commercialised.

- For broadcasters, there is an opportunity to trial and integrate new technology, explore diverse content offerings, and harness the popularity of digital platforms and new viewer trends to accelerate changes in the way the live sport experience is delivered to fans.

- For brands and sponsors, there is an opportunity to consider taking advantage of additional advertising space with LED power packs and new technology achievements with virtual tools. This allows for broad visibility through innovative content and evolving viewing trends, explore new segments such as esports, and to leverage the huge appetite among fans to watch sport again

[Chester Perry]

Some of you might have read about this over the weekend - Manchester Utd suing football manager (video game) over the use of their name

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... se-of-name

It more than likely has a lot to do with this - Juventus sold exclusive naming (and other rights) to game maker Konami, forcing other games like FIFA 20to rename the club

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 06946.html

It can be lucrative especially for clubs with a made up name like Juventus rather than a place like Liverpool (remember them trying to trademark it last year) The only such club I can think of in the English game is Orient.

but it does have its complications as this legal blog piece outlines

https://www.mondaq.com/uk/licensing-syn ... me-content

[Chester Perry]

But hey the expectation still is that the Premier League will bail the game out even though it has no money for itself

https://twitter.com/uglygame/status/1264633670763241482

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1264643313887576067

It goes on - This from David Conn (a great and informed journalist - especially in areas of football finance) in the Guardian today

Premier League must finally share its riches to save English football
The argument for financial reform is at last beyond credible dispute as historic clubs face ruin owing to the Covid-19 crisis
David Conn - Mon 25 May 2020 09.00 BST

Even before football was plunged into crisis by the Covid-19 pandemic, influential people in the game were discussing the need for the Premier League’s improbable fortunes to be shared more equally. As historic, stalwart lower-division and semi-professional clubs stare at ruin, and promised investment could drain from the grassroots, the argument is finally beyond credible dispute.

However the Premier League resolves its struggle to finish this season so that it can clutch the remainder of the TV money, it will still be a huge draw for broadcast billions when normal life finally returns. The pre-pandemic position, that the big clubs keep 93% of the current, 2019-22, £8.65bn TV deals, handing most of it to players in wages while trickling drops down for good works, does not look sustainable following the crisis.

Some sceptics raised eyebrows when the EFL chairman, Rick Parry, made his forthright arguments that football’s finances need a reset and described Premier League parachute payments as an “evil that must be eradicated”. Football people who are getting on a bit recall Parry as the energetic first Premier League chief executive, engineering its breakaway with the Football League’s First Division clubs, and the introduction, in 1992, of parachute payments for relegated clubs.

But Parry’s advocacy for financial reform, much more urgent and necessary now, is not a case of amnesia from the work he did earlier in his career. When he was headhunted by the EFL last year, in what seemed a turbulent period but now seems like a lost utopia, Parry is understood to have reminded people that he has long advocated closer union, and more distribution, between the leagues.

As early as 1995, with the 72 clubs in the Football League’s three divisions still seething at the breakaway of the top division teams from sharing 50% of the TV money, Parry offered to repair some of the breach. Looking to the second round of TV deals beginning in 1997, he secured agreement from the Premier League’s clubs to sell the rights jointly with the Football League, and share the proceeds 80-20.

The Football League’s response caused a huge internal row at the time, since filed away with all the other huge football rows, because the board rejected the offer. Larger clubs in what is now the Championship were furious at that missed opportunity for more sharing with the Premier League and it led to reforms, including Richard Scudamore’s appointment as the Football League’s chief executive in 1997.

Scudamore was highly rated as an operator and was promptly snapped up by the Premier League, where he came to personify its resounding worldwide growth in popularity and unfeasible broadcast fortunes. Scudamore was also an unforgiving fighter for its independence and supremacy, beating back the FA’s influence as the governing body, and cementing and widening the gap with the EFL.

Tested by government or MPs’ inquiries into the game’s divisions and commercial casualties, Scudamore also became expert at gaming political battles and doing enough to resist talk of regulation. He did prompt the Premier League into good works it is never slow to trumpet in front of governments: the community programmes, funding for grassroots facilities, and money to the EFL, touchingly described as “solidarity”. As the figures are scrutinised in these straitened times, and discounting the £273m parachute payments the Premier League likes to present as money for the EFL, the total distribution has been clarified as 6.8%.

Before the crisis hit, the discussion about more sharing was not just limited to the EFL. Some Premier League clubs, for whom relegation is a possibility, were beginning to argue for change too. Surprisingly, there is said to be some support even among the top clubs for the longstanding traditions of distributing money, genuine solidarity and strength in depth.

The argument against sharing, that the top clubs need to keep more of the money to attract players who can compete in Europe, has been rendered redundant by the Premier League’s success. Its TV deals are more than double those of the next richest European league, the Bundesliga, so the clubs can easily share more than 20% now and still be utterly dominant.

League Two clubs have decided to curtail their season, League One clubs are considering the same, and many are wondering how their futures can be sustained. These clubs say there is no point borrowing from the government’s crisis scheme, because loans will need to be repaid and they may still have paltry income next season if crowds remain prohibited. But if they know that from 2022 they will receive significant funding from joint Premier League and EFL selling of TV rights, they could borrow against that and plot a survival plan.

Before the general election, the FA was given the very surprising promise from the Conservative party of £730m for grassroots investment over the next 10 years, but that must now be in doubt. However, the need to have decent sports facilities for people to maintain and rebuild their physical and psychological fitness will be more compelling than ever in the period of national recovery to come.

The grim, greedy insistence that a few clubs must keep so much of football’s money has been damaging for years and now, in this terrible crisis, the game faces a compelling case to put itself back together again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposition that the Premier League retain 93% of the TV income is factually incorrect as Conn well knows - there is the 5% of broadcast revenue that the PFA take, they have done since the Premier League was formed.

The argument that Parachute payments are payments to self are not the whole story, they can be certainly seen to be an investment in the Premier Leagues product certainly but their has to be some recognition that they fund the restructuring of relegated teams and spread revenue to other EFL teams via inflated transfer fees they are obliged to pay. It has also been quite forgotten that teams in receipt of Parachute Payments are not allowed the solidarity payments, that could mean as many as 9 teams in the Championship which substantially increases the pot for the 63. The other, and perhaps, more significant figure is that if a club in receipt of Parachute Payments gets promoted, any legacy Parachute payments are transferred to the Solidarity payment fund, not returned to the Premier League. In either circumstance the Solidarity payment is enhanced for those who receive it.

It can be seen that the Premier give much more away than Conn admits too, and much more than any sport that has promotion/relegation I am aware of (in both % and monetary value) and more than any industry.

Should football be restructured? absolutely, I suspect that it has to be done on more than a national level though.

Should a league that has it's own financial troubles, yet consistently upheld it's committed financial obligations to a pyramid on time and even advanced future payments, when at the same time it is being asked to refund as much 20% of it's own income? I am much less sure, especially when the those who are pleading for it are reckless enough to spend over 100% of their income on players wages on average.

You will have heard much talk about salary caps in the EFL, most writing about them forget that they exist in Leagues 1 and 2 (at 60% and 50% of revenue) they are just ignored essentially, as owners chuck money into their clubs. Should those clubs be helped?

[Chester Perry]

It's here!! the much awaited Football Shorts part 2 from new board member The ESK

https://theesk.org/2020/05/25/football-shorts-part-ii/

Paul you may need to revisit some of those figures for Burnley, they look overstated at least in that first graph

[The esk]

Thanks Chester, I will do so later when able to do so. Happy to answer any questions

[Royboyclaret]

It's here!! the much awaited Football Shorts part 2 from new board member The ESK

https://theesk.org/2020/05/25/football-shorts-part-ii/

Paul you may need to revisit some of those figures for Burnley, they look overstated at least in that first graph

Oh dear!......And after all the praise heaped on The esk for part 1 of the article.

Look, these things happen, but at first inspection it appears the Wage bill is the figure that is throwing all the graphs out of skew. £103m seems to be the number being used when in fact our Wage bill to Jun.'19 was £86.6m.

Using £86.6m would give the graphs a whole different complexion, with our Wage/Turnover ratio at 63%, a far better looking figure than that shown in the graphs.

Also Turnover in Graph 1 should read £137.8m.

[Chester Perry]

Thanks Chester, I will do so later when able to do so. Happy to answer any questions

Paul, I almost certainly do not have access to the same information as you, or financial knowledge, but I was struck by the differences in EBITDA in your table and this from @SwissRamble - are there different ways of calculating this?

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 48/photo/1

It was following my surprise at the Bournemouth outcome to your scenario's that triggered this comparison.

Please don't take this as negative, I am extremely interested (positively eager actually) to see the outcome of your work having abandoned an attempt at something along similar lines a couple of weeks back because I lacked the required understanding of some of the information. The clear line of thought, presentation and discussion you offer are much valued.

[Chester Perry]

Oh dear!......And after all the praise heaped on The esk for part 1 of the article.

Look, these things happen, but at first inspection it appears the Wage bill is the figure that is throwing all the graphs out of skew. £103m seems to be the number being used when in fact our Wage bill to Jun.'19 was £86.6m.

Using £86.6m would give the graphs a whole different complexion, with our Wage/Turnover ratio at 63%, a far better looking figure than that shown in the graphs.

Also Turnover in Graph 1 should read £137.8m.

Roy the Graphs display wage value (£) on the vertical and % of turnover on the horizontal

[Chester Perry]

Meanwhile issues of EFL governance have been raised by Barnsley as they bid to avoid relegation (Stevenage are also at it) and they have a point though I remain far from convinced that punishments in the form of points deductions would be significant enough to change the standings that much - It does though illustrate just how deep the divides remain at this time with the EFL

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... letter-efl

[Royboyclaret]

Roy the Graphs display wage value (£) on the vertical and % of turnover on the horizontal

I fully understand that, and in Graph 1 he has Wages at £103m and the Wages/Turnover ratio at some 74%.

When in fact the figures are £86.6m and 63%. Then the graph looks completely different.

[Royboyclaret]

I fully understand that, and in Graph 1 he has Wages at £103m and the Wages/Turnover ratio at some 74%.

When in fact the figures are £86.6m and 63%. Then the graph looks completely different.

In the Staff costs in millions chart he originally had the cost at £103m before amending that figure to £87m.

[The esk]

I was gifted an extensive dataset by someone in the industry. Unfortunately I am finding errors in it - such as your figures. I am going to cross reference the "gifted" data with my own research. Apologies, it is only the occasional error, but still I'd prefer there to be none. Swiss Ramble who is a friend of mine uses Deloitte figures which sometimes do not correspond with Companies House data. Companies House data is of course the best source but as I do this for a hobby I don't have time to copy all their data into spreadsheets.

I hope the occasional error doesn't detract from the general analysis - appreciate you all reading my stuff anyway!

[Royboyclaret]

I fully understand that, and in Graph 1 he has Wages at £103m and the Wages/Turnover ratio at some 74%.

When in fact the figures are £86.6m and 63%. Then the graph looks completely different.

Similarly in the graph for scenario 1, same Wage bill with all Revenue minus Matchday Income or £86.6m and £137.8m minus £6.3m = £131.5m......65%.

And scenario 2, same Wage bill zero Matchday Income and all other Revenue minus 20% or £86.6m and £131.5m minus £26.4m = £105.1m.......82%.

On both graphs The esk has the percentage much higher, and again I think because he has used a Wage bill of £103m.

[Chester Perry]

Similarly in the graph for scenario 1, same Wage bill with all Revenue minus Matchday Income or £86.6m and £137.8m minus £6.3m = £131.5m......65%.

And scenario 2, same Wage bill zero Matchday Income and all other Revenue minus 20% or £86.6m and £131.5m minus £26.4m = £105.1m.......82%.

On both graphs The esk has the percentage much higher, and again I think because he has used a Wage bill of £103m.

I saw that too

[Chester Perry]

I was gifted an extensive dataset by someone in the industry. Unfortunately I am finding errors in it - such as your figures. I am going to cross reference the "gifted" data with my own research. Apologies, it is only the occasional error, but still I'd prefer there to be none. Swiss Ramble who is a friend of mine uses Deloitte figures which sometimes do not correspond with Companies House data. Companies House data is of course the best source but as I do this for a hobby I don't have time to copy all their data into spreadsheets.

I hope the occasional error doesn't detract from the general analysis - appreciate you all reading my stuff anyway!

Paul it happens, and we also have met issues with Deloitte in the past

as I posted before - don't take the comments as negative (though I am sure you are finding it dis-spiriting) we fully support what you are trying to do and appreciate both the effort involved and the difficulties you are encountering.

[Royboyclaret]

Paul, I almost certainly do not have access to the same information as you, or financial knowledge, but I was struck by the differences in EBITDA in your table and this from @SwissRamble - are there different ways of calculating this?

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 48/photo/1

It was following my surprise at the Bournemouth outcome to your scenario's that triggered this comparison.

Please don't take this as negative, I am extremely interested (positively eager actually) to see the outcome of your work having abandoned an attempt at something along similar lines a couple of weeks back because I lacked the required understanding of some of the information. The clear line of thought, presentation and discussion you offer are much valued.

Chester, the formula for EBITDA is straightforward enough, being the Profit/Loss with Amortisation and Depreciation added back. So, in our case to Jun.'19 (2.1m) plus £39m = £36.9m.

For some reason The esk has that figure at £43.98m.

[Royboyclaret]

Also intrigued by the chart showing the Age profile of our squad and particularly the 18-23 range at 8%.

Not contesting that figure at all but it's markedly different to any other PL club.

[Chester Perry]

Chester, the formula for EBITDA is straightforward enough, being the Profit/Loss with Amortisation and Depreciation added back. So, in our case to Jun.'19 (2.1m) plus £39m = £36.9m.

For some reason The esk has that figure at £43.98m.

Thanks for that Roy

I think Paul has explained his data issues, he sounds. understandably. disappointed that he trusted data he was given.

[Chester Perry]

Also intrigued by the chart showing the Age profile of our squad and particularly the 18-23 range at 8%.

Not contesting that figure at all but it's markedly different to any other PL club.

It represents the 2 players of the 24 man 1st team squad that were in the age bracket when the season began - Dwight McNeil and Josh Brownhill - and the age profile is something that many on this board have been concerned about for some time

[Royboyclaret]

Thanks for that Roy

I think Paul has explained his data issues, he sounds. understandably. disappointed that he trusted data he was given.

Indeed, he must be concerned.

I wondered if the problem was unique to his Burnley data and so checked the Wage/Turnover ratio of three other PL clubs at random. Taking Wolves, Chelsea & Watford the actual figures are 63%, 54% & 57% respectively and thankfully they all coincide with the percentages on The esk's first graph.

Our's should be the same as Chelsea at 63% but he has us nearer 74%.

[Royboyclaret]

Just further checked Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal and they are all the same as shown in The esk's graph.

So it appears the data problem is going to be unique to Burnley.

Just had to be, didn't it?!

[The esk]

Also intrigued by the chart showing the Age profile of our squad and particularly the 18-23 range at 8%.

Not contesting that figure at all but it's markedly different to any other PL club.

The age data is taken from Transfermrkt.com - a usually reliable data source - I have spoken to their key owners/executives to verify their data sources

[Chester Perry]

The age data is taken from Transfermrkt.com - a usually reliable data source - I have spoken to their key owners/executives to verify their data sources

it is correct

[Chester Perry]

Just further checked Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal and they are all the same as shown in The esk's graph.

So it appears the data problem is going to be unique to Burnley.

Just had to be, didn't it?!

Arsenal, Bournemouth, Brighton, Burnley, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd, Southampton, Tottenham, Watford, West Ham and Wolves are very different in the EBITDA to @SwissRamble

[Chester Perry]

I posted a couple of weeks ago about FIFA sacking the board at the Trinidad and Tobago FA - I made the mistake that this was a spin off from the Jack Warner days and corruption was being cleaned up (oh what a silly boy) the tale is probably even more sorry than that - the FIFA president had moved to support an ally that had been democratically replaced in an election - from Josimar Football

http://josimarfootball.com/infantinos-revenge/

It has taken a while but the second part of this investigation from Josimar is now available

http://josimarfootball.com/fifa-in-the- ... YU.twitter

[Royboyclaret]

Arsenal, Bournemouth, Brighton, Burnley, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd, Southampton, Tottenham, Watford, West Ham and Wolves are very different in the EBITDA to @SwissRamble

Not suggesting for one minute this is the reason behind the difference, but perhaps worth consideration..........

Swiss Ramble, from recollection, has always used Operating Profit/Loss as his starting point in the caculation before adding back Amortisation and Depreciation. So, for Burnley to Jun.19 a Loss of (£2.1m) with £39m added back =£36.9m. (Same for the previous year at Profit of £14m with £30m added back =£44m.

In other words, a starting point before Profit on Sale of Assets, again in our case to Jun.19 the profit on sale of Sam Vokes for £7m and in the previous year Keane and Gray at £30m.

Using the Net Profit/Loss as a starting point, therefore, the calculation would have been (£2.1m) + £7m =£4.9m + £39m = £43.9m, which just so happens to be The esk's figure in his EBITDA chart.

EBITDA represents Earnings before Interest, Taxation, Depreciation and Amortisation.

[Chester Perry]

Has Gordon Strachan offered a dose of realism to Scottish Football - no doubt he will have upset a few but he definitely has a point

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52797428

If you think that only 1 club in the 5th tier of English football is part time and plenty in the 6th and 7th tier pay more and attract much bigger crowds

[Chester Perry]

There are some truly strange sounding stories going round about Premier League football finance at the moment - following news that Man United have accessed £140m of their £150m credit facility to add to their remaining £90m of cash (as of end of March - remember they spend £30m+ a month on wages and other costs) to see them through the next few months - there is suggestion that the vultures are offering only extortionate rates of interest to a small group of Premier League clubs who are desperate for cash.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -BUST.html

Has it really come to this? - Bury style finances in the Premier League - I have my doubts at those rates even for the likes of Norwich, Watford and Bournemouth who are threatened with relegation.

[Royboyclaret]

There are some truly strange sounding stories going round about Premier League football finance at the moment - following news that Man United have accessed £140m of their £150m credit facility to add to their remaining £90m of cash (as of end of March - remember they spend £30m+ a month on wages and other costs) to see them through the next few months - there is suggestion that the vultures are offering only extortionate rates of interest to a small group of Premier League clubs who are desperate for cash.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -BUST.html

Has it really come to this? - Bury style finances in the Premier League - I have my doubts at those rates even for the likes of Norwich, Watford and Bournemouth who are threatened with relegation.

Chester, yesterday when Hodgkinson referred to 50/60 clubs potentially going to the wall, he didn't mention that those casualties may well not be confined to the EFL. Although one of those clubs will likely as not be playing in the Championship next season.

[Chester Perry]

In respect to the origins of this thread, today marks the 15th anniversary of the Glazers take over of Manchester United - @KieranMaguirre believes it was the day that wider interest in and the specialism of Football Finance was born

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 1626824708

The Athletic have done an in depth profile of their Glazer reign at Old Trafford

https://twitter.com/TheAthleticUK/statu ... 9745375236

Where could United be without those unnecessary outgoings?

and for those of us without the subscription, there was discussion of the article on the Ornstein and Chapman Podcast today

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... IDRAE&ep=6

[Royboyclaret]

A bit more of the EBITDA differences between Swiss Ramble and The esk.

Someone yesterday kindly sent me a copy of the Liverpool financial accounts for last year. They had an Operating Profit of just £572k, but Depreciation, Amortisation & Impairment costs of £122.9m. So an EBITDA at Anfield of £124m which is exactly the figure featured by Swiss Ramble.

The esk has the equivalent figure at £10.46m which is completely beyond my comprehension.

[Chester Perry]

Chester, yesterday when Hodgkinson referred to 50/60 clubs potentially going to the wall, he didn't mention that those casualties may well not be confined to the EFL. Although one of those clubs will likely as not be playing in the Championship next season.

There are Premier League clubs in serious financial trouble, the esk's article demonstrated that clearly enough yesterday (even with the issues we highlighted) and yet again there are fresh calls today for the Premier League to bail out the EFL and National League. With what, from where? I ask, With what and from where exactly are they going to provide these monies?.

Perhaps more significantly, while these begging cries are made, these self-same clubs and leagues are no nearer getting their house in order to make them an attractive proposition to loan to. If they are so desperate for money why are they not first making themselves an attractive proposition to invest in/loan to?

I posted a while back that there were investors waiting for the EFL if they got their rules together

If Parry gets his way it seems that there are a new bunch "investors" ready to take over Championship clubs

"Our view is that the EFL will change its governance and tighten its financial procedures and oversights. That will lead to an increase in attraction for new owners to move into the EFL.

'We have a big pool of owners who are looking into buying into EFL clubs right now. We are doing analysis on 14 clubs. The second thing is with the Premier League we have a significant number of interested parties.

'What we have seen in the Premier League and sport in general is a shift from private individuals to companies who want to invest in football clubs. An example of a company is City Football Group or Fenway Sports.

'But we are CVC’s advisor in rugby and institutional investment is now looking at football clubs right across the board in Europe, including the Premier League.'

It might be a crisis, and the game might be looking on with fear. But take a closer look and opportunities abound."

that was Andrew Umbers of Oakwell Sports Advisory (https://oakwellsports.com/) speaking to the Mail in this article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... tball.html

I said the Vultures were lurking.

[Chester Perry]

This is a shocking way to run a club - Livingston go to a twitter poll to determine whether a player whose contract is coming to an end should have it extended

https://twitter.com/LiviFCOfficial/stat ... 8784693256

Unprofessional and inhumane is my immediate reaction - I am thoroughly disgusted

[Bordeauxclaret]

This is a shocking way to run a club - Livingston go to a twitter poll to determine whether a player whose contract is coming to an end should have it extended

https://twitter.com/LiviFCOfficial/stat ... 8784693256

Unprofessional and inhumane is my immediate reaction - I am thoroughly disgusted

I couldn’t work out what was happening here as Marvin Bartley was adding a lot of comments so assumed it was a joke.

[Chester Perry]

Also in Scotland, a very different tale - Motherwell FC: We own the future - a tale of a fan owned club

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p078qllg

uplifting (also think they have a great club tie)

EDIT and I am on record about having doubts over fan ownership

[Chester Perry]

I couldn’t work out what was happening here as Marvin Bartley was adding a lot of comments so assumed it was a joke.

It pairs well with this actually - Ross County not furloughing players or extending contracts - morally shocking says player at end of contract

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52793701

not saying they should but there are such a diversity of actions at clubs, that there is no surprise that there is turmoil as to what the leagues should do

[Chester Perry]

So with players, clubs, leagues even fans at each others throats over a wide range of issues that boil down to the one essential ingredient - "money" I am really starting to see the clear benefit of the American Franchise approach to sport (I have the soap ready to wash my mouth out).

The League is in control, it sets the rules, it's aim is to build the strength and wealth of all it's members and maintain a great level of sporting competitiveness - their may be periods of occasional dominance (Chicago Bulls, New England Patriots etc) but at some point most of the franchises have an opportunity to win something if their house is in order, the system helps them. How that can translate to football I am not sure, but there is much to be learned from the core attitude that everyone must have a realistic chance of coming out on top at some point.

And Yes I am fully cognisant of the hugely aggravating factor that is relegation.