I have used this weeks free article to access this given that it has caused so much discussion across the mediaChester Perry wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:57 pmIf anyone can transcribe this article I would be grateful - Steve Parish is the first Premier League owner to speak on the issue of bail-out to the pyramid
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-o ... -tqxf9vl2z
No other industry is asking firms to bail out competitors
Premier League clubs are being unfairly singled out
Steve Parish, Crystal Palace part-owner and chairman - Saturday October 03 2020, 6.00pm, The Sunday Times
When, in May, I wrote a Sunday Times column arguing the Premier League should try to restart safely, I warned that the coronavirus crisis would be a long, grim haul and that the challenges we’d face come autumn would not be so different to those at its start.
And that is largely the case. Infections are rising and sadly so is the toll of lives being lost. I don’t need to explain to anyone in business, or any worker being laid off, the catastrophic economic consequences the pandemic is bringing too. These will continue unless we find a strategy and consensus for moving forward.
Football’s problems are not unique. They’re not worse than in other sectors — certainly not aviation or hotels — but as someone said, we aren’t all in the same boat but we’re in the same storm and the route out for all of us will be similar. As a Premier League club we are more fortunate than most, but still face big revenue losses from lack of crowds at games and a very subdued transfer market where only the state-owned or uneconomically run clubs are spending significant sums.
Last month the government froze plans for fans to return to stadiums. Given its contradictory handling of this whole crisis, this was as predictable as it was disappointing. With safety and distance measures developed by scientific experts and agreed by the government’s own Sports Ground Safety Authority and seven pilot games that led to zero infections the Premier League is certain that fans in stadiums would be as safe, if not safer, than any other public activities allowed.
At present in the UK, six people can gather within two metres — our plans ensured no person would be within two metres of another for any extended period. The new NHS tracing app provides an alert if you’ve been within two metres of someone with Covid-19 for 15 minutes: that’s the government’s own benchmark of safety. I am sure with reduced capacities we can easily meet this standard, and with clubs holding the details of everyone who attends matches, we could control individual risk factors such as age and pre-existing conditions. This coupled with careful management of concourses, lavatories and turnstiles would reduce chances of transmission to as low as possible. Not to absolute zero but we have a good track record so far of keeping players and staff safe, which I feel sure we can extend to supporters.
It’s not just about money. Football desperately needs the fans back, at times it almost seems pointless playing in empty stadiums, and even a quarter-full stadium improves the experience and spectacle drastically. I believe once more that football could lead the way in proving that there are safe ways to maintain a little of life’s pleasures. Our game against Chelsea yesterday was shown in Vue cinemas, to audiences packed indoors, while once again there were no spectators in the stands. This makes little sense.
The decision on crowds sent EFL clubs into despair and caused Premier League clubs to plan for increased losses. Other areas of the sport and entertainment industry have been similarly hit and I was pleased to hear Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, announce a “rescue plan” worth £1.5 billion for the theatre (who still have crowds) and plenty to come for rugby, cricket and other sports. In fact, every industry will be getting help — except football, because, as Dowden explained, the government expects the Premier League to bail out the “football family”.
While we accept we are called to a higher account than other business, given the place we occupy in communities and the national discourse, not one company in any other industry, to my knowledge, is being asked to bail out its competitors. The supermarkets aren’t instructed to help the corner shops. Deliveroo aren’t bailing out your local café. Premier League clubs, while they may have some wealthy shareholders, are not awash with cash: when was the last time a club had the profits to pay a dividend? Most if not all of clubs’ revenue is invested in players, stadiums and the community.
I know this will not be a popular view. Many of you reading this will be saying: “It’s the Premier League, they have unlimited money, look at their transfers and wages, of course they should pay.” This is all emotion and no logic. The Premier League has no money of its own — none. It is basically a not-for-profit body that distributes all its funds to clubs. In turn, clubs budget for that income and spend accordingly. They are not run for profit either — we run our business to win matches. While a few clubs are blessed with seemingly unlimited funds, most clubs have either large debts to the owners, or to banks, or both and many shareholders at clubs such as Crystal Palace, or Burnley, are not people with significant wealth — they cannot write cheques to cover losses.
So why is it the Premier League is being asked, uniquely, to bail out its “industry family”?
Yes, we pay our talent high wages but players are our assets — assets that help us to achieve our aims in the same way as talent and machinery do in other businesses. We have to invest in them or face financial consequences costlier than the money we invest. With the bailout, we are being asked to invest less so that we can give money to clubs — sometimes with wealthier owners — that may use that money to replace us in the Premier League.
We are not using furlough money or (in the main) taking government loans. Almost every penny that Premier League clubs receive is spent and taxed; if we receive less many of us will spend less. That has an impact on not only our competitiveness but also capital projects like our new academy. And to cover revenue shortfall due to Covid many of us have taken on increased debt.
Then there is the issue of where the Premier League money would be going. I have great sympathy for clubs lower down but there are plenty of ways that Championship clubs could mitigate their problems, principally by not buying players or by selling some. At Palace we had to make a sale happen this year where we could, in different times, have received more. Yet Championship clubs are regularly turning down player deals that could ease their problems.
I’m not oblivious to the plight of EFL clubs. A few months ago I wasn’t entirely against the concept of a bailout. But that was when I believed there was some kind of endgame. Now, this country seems to have neither a strategy for eradicating this virus nor a plan to live alongside it. After six months you would have hoped we would be doing better than being told one week to go back to work and then two weeks later to stay at home.
We need to keep as much of our economy open as is safe until we are rid of this disease. That means taking the right decisions for the long term. The government seems to fear how the public might see crowds returning but needs to stop worrying about the optics and do what’s going to help in the long term. The Premier League is not immune to Covid financially. We stand ready to help where we can — as long as we have a sensible response to the challenges facing us.