Football's Magic Money Tree

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:21 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:57 pm
If 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
I have used this weeks free article to access this given that it has caused so much discussion across the media

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.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:48 pm

An excellent example of how sell-on clauses filter money down the leagues - The sale of Ben Godfrey from Norwich to Everton has probably enabled York City to ride out the current economic crisis

https://twitter.com/michaeljbailey/stat ... 6003654656

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:04 pm

Barcelona announce their 2019/20 financial results on transfer deadline day - as if to explain their lack of activity - revenue's down Euro 192m on budget and Euro 108m reversal on budgeted profit

https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club/new ... of-covid19

the link contains both a summary of the accounts and the ability to download the clubs summary financial report which is structured in a way to try and show sound financial - as the members are about to have a no confidence vote in the President

frankinwales
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:22 am
Been Liked: 86 times
Has Liked: 648 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by frankinwales » Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:19 pm

Thanks Chester.... Steve Parish there saying much the same as our manager... Up the Clarets.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:20 pm

@TariqPanja with some initial thoughts on those Barcelona numbers

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 9072033792

Conroysleftfoot
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 349 times
Has Liked: 294 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Conroysleftfoot » Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:28 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:48 pm
An excellent example of how sell-on clauses filter money down the leagues - The sale of Ben Godfrey from Norwich to Everton has probably enabled York City to ride out the current economic crisis

https://twitter.com/michaeljbailey/stat ... 6003654656
Pleased for York City

Royboyclaret
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 1273 times
Has Liked: 680 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Royboyclaret » Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:35 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:20 pm
@TariqPanja with some initial thoughts on those Barcelona numbers

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 9072033792
I understand the remodelling of the Nou Camp has been on the agenda for some time, but to lose it's original unique identity would be a massive shame and great loss to football in general. Once sat on the very back row behind the goals and felt to be up in the clouds, it was so high.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:04 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:47 pm
You have to be cautious about the media outlet here and it's reasons to launch such a story - but if this is true then there is still much to be concerned about in regards to Qatar's World Cup preparation

https://www.foxnews.com/world/qatar-cor ... -world-cup
Pleased I started the above post with a note of caution

https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/statu ... 9231903744

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:43 pm

Just to add to the woe and of the Premier League (and possibly fans groups demanding all behind closed door games be televised - a new report shows that the country has got over it's desire to watch as much football as possible shown during restart. From SportsProMedia

Report: Sky’s Premier League viewership down as broadcasters fear oversaturation
Pay-TV network sees strong figures for big games undermined by less interest in other matches.

Posted: October 5 2020 By: Tom Bassam

- Sky’s 12 originally selected games see audience up 8% against 2019 equivalent fixtures
- Overall average per match down for Premier League’s main UK broadcaster

The Premier League’s main domestic broadcast partners, Sky and BT Sport, are concerned that the value of their contracts are being undermined by oversaturation, according to the Daily Mail.

With fans still shut out of stadia, every match from English soccer’s top flight is being aired live in the UK, and the Mail reports that Sky’s average per match viewership across the first three rounds of Premier League fixtures is slightly down on normal levels.

However, to illustrate the pay-TV broadcasters’ concerns, average viewership for the 12 matches originally picked by Sky for broadcast this season are reportedly up eight per cent compared to the equivalent fixtures last season, indicating the overall numbers are being dragged down by minimal interest outside of the big games.

Talks with the Premier League over the number of games being made available for domestic broadcast remain ongoing but Sky and BT Sport have announced their initial TV picks for the next three rounds of fixtures with just half of the matches selected.

Last month, British prime minister Boris Johnson delayed the partial return of fans that was planned for October due to a spike in Covid-19 cases. Unless Sky and BT broaden their match selections to all fixtures fans of certain teams will have no way to watch their club’s games live.

According to a recent report from The Times, one solution for the Premier League is allowing clubs to stream games not picked by Sky or BT Sport on their own websites on a pay-per-view (PPV) basis, with season ticket holders given free access.

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by superdimitri » Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:07 pm

How is it possible for all these teams to breach ffp with wages expenditure? Are the rich owners just gambling on it being overruled?

There's a rule that states you can't up your wage bill more than 5% so how have the likes of Aston Villa bought in do many new signings?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:28 pm

superdimitri wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:07 pm
How is it possible for all these teams to breach ffp with wages expenditure? Are the rich owners just gambling on it being overruled?

There's a rule that states you can't up your wage bill more than 5% so how have the likes of Aston Villa bought in do many new signings?
That rule was removed at the beginning of last season

Villa have plugged a lot of capital into the club via share issues - they have spent £225m (so far) since promotion but that is probably less than £60m in amortisation

They will have revenues above £150m even with Covid - so Premier League FFP (which has been rolled into the current season) gives them plenty of leeway - they believe they were on target to just meet it last season - this season's spend will be more of a challenge, I believe they are allowed to add more share capital if needed - it is a fixed (rather modest amount) but helps

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:32 pm

The thing is Chester, I put something to you and you said it was made up crap.

Seconds later, Royboy comes in and verifies it as fact and says it's pretty much spot on.

So why should I believe your posts? I want to learn as I always do with things, but you post a lot, and Royboyclaret doesn't agree with you.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:37 pm

FactualFrank wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:32 pm
The thing is Chester, I put something to you and you said it was made up crap.

Seconds later, Royboy comes in and verifies it as fact and says it's pretty much spot on.

So why should I believe your posts? I want to learn as I always do with things, but you post a lot, and Royboyclaret doesn't agree with you.
You specifically asked me if they were "last season" (2019/20) figures - I said "No" - nothing else

I recognised some 2018/19 figures which Roy confirmed to you as being correct to the last published accounts (which was the 2018/19 results) and also said other numbers were wildly wrong - so yes I stand by what I said - for 2019/20 they were (in your paraphrasing) "made up crap"

EDIT - I will also add that any time I have got things wrong on this board - I have held my hands up and acknowledged any correction of my understanding. It is why for the most part I seek to add support data where possible.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:44 pm

The esk wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:49 am
It is interesting that the £250 million requested/demanded by the EFL is less than 1% of the total estimated net worth of all the EFL Club major shareholders. Whilst clearly a number of clubs do not have significantly wealthy owners, there is sufficient wealth across the League to make a meaningful contribution to their own competition and thus the welfare of their own clubs.
and yet this evening we have this in the Telegraph - bear in mind Cardiff were in receipt of Parachute payments last season and will be again this season

EFL bailout deadlock: Championship bosses criticise Premier League's 'I'm alright, Jack' elite
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 05, 2020

The Premier League's deadlock in talks with the English Football League over a rescue packaging has been branded "pathetic" and "ridiculous" by furious Championship executives.

In an interview with Telegraph Sport, Mehmet Dalman, the Cardiff City chairman, launched a scathing attack on failures by governing bodies to strike a deal to ensure money is funneled down from the "I'm alright, Jack" elite.

Another Championship executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, added that he was "appalled" to see transfer in the top tier hit almost £1.2 billion as the international window closed. "And yet the posturing continues," the chief executive added.

Well placed sources have told Telegraph Sport that a bail-out counter-offer from the Premier League is not expected for another week at least because smaller top flight clubs fear handing any competitive advances to clubs such as Cardiff.

Dalman believes around half of clubs' in the Championship may now be for sale because there is no end in sight for the financial disaster caused by Covid.

"It's ridiculous," said Dalman of the lack of progress by Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, and Rick Parry, the EFL chairman. "The negotiations with the EFL, the Premier League, the LMA [League Managers Association] is best summed up as being pathetic. Nobody wants to move, nobody wants to make a decision."

Why Championship clubs' overspending and financial troubles are stalling Premier League's EFL bailout
Cardiff ruled out doing any business as the transfer window closes. Dalman refused to criticise the top tier for spending heavily, but said there was an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude in the elite, while the EFL is in a "terrible state".

Dalman, who estimates his club is "burning through" up to £3.5 million a month, says ongoing delays in negotiations between players and coaches unions are making life impossible.

"People keep talking about referrals, but they're just a red herring – you're still going to have to balance books," he added. "Referrals don't actually help at all, apart from short term relief or financial repression. There's a real need to show some sort of action. We're burning through two and a half, three and a half million pounds a month, and with no spectators, no merchandising sold, no hospitality offered, it's just not a sustainable model."

After a summer in which Chelsea have spent more than £200 million on transfer fees alone, the Government has said that there was an obligation for the Premier League to show solidarity with the cash-strapped lower tiers. Dalman agrees: "I think it's wrong for us to ask the Government to give us a handout... I think the Government has got enough on their hands without worrying about us".

"On the other side, the Premier League depends on the Championship for the excitement that they create, with the relegation battles, the promotion battles," he added. "Even if they come short term it will be a massive help. If they were to hand out 20 per cent of the money that they actually receive, Championship clubs will be financially viable."

Dalman said he had seen "zero movement" in discussions, and "nothing is happening". "It's just not sustainable and it's also clear to me that the coronavirus is not going to go away in the short term," he added, adding that the whole football industry will need "some steps to be restructured".

"I would not be surprised if half of the Championship clubs are for sale," he added. "I know at least six clubs that are for sale in the Championship. So, I'm sure the remaining are not having a comfortable time either."

Cardiff, he said, "are in a better position than most", but the club is finding it impossible to cut costs because players and staff are tied into contracts. "You can't sell players at the true valuation because nobody wants them," he added. The Championship is open to the prospect of a wage cap, with many clubs spending already more than 100 per cent of revenue on salaries pre-Covid, but Dalman says the measure will not solve the immediate crisis.

"The problem is your fixed costs are high, wage levels are high," he added. "The only answer I can see is that the Premier League has to distribute some of its wealth to the lesser clubs."

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

The guys at Vysyble have taken note and sum it quite neatly

https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1313187306359185411
Last edited by Chester Perry on Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:56 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 8:36 pm
Swansea have added a 3rd American Investor to the club and board - from SportsBusiness.com

Swansea City secures new US investment
Bob Williams, US office - August 7, 2020

English Football League club Swansea City has secured new American investment after private finance entrepreneur Jake Silverstein acquired an undisclosed stake in the Championship team.

The Portland, Oregon-based Silverstein is chairman and chief executive of Stormlight Holdings, the major American-based private investment firm of the Silverstein family.

He is also a co-owner of Major League Soccer’s Houston Dynamo and the National Women’s Soccer League’s Houston Dash.

Silverstein has joined Swansea’s board of directors following his investment.

“We are pleased to welcome Jake to the Board and Swansea City Football Club,’’ said Swansea’s co-managing owners Steve Kaplan and Jason Levien in a statement.

“Jake is a highly-respected individual, businessman and sports team investor. He has experience, knowledge and expertise across a wide range of fields which will be an asset to Swansea City. We are looking forward to his contribution,” the statement added.

In addition, Kaplan and Levien – who are also co-owners of MLS team DC United – have put “additional funds” into the club in the wake of the financial effects of the global Covid-19 pandemic.

The duo took over Swansea in 2016 in a deal worth around £100m (€119.1m/$131.4m).
Seems like there is a change in power in the boardroom at Swansea

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 5106690051

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:38 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:43 pm
Just to add to the woe and of the Premier League (and possibly fans groups demanding all behind closed door games be televised - a new report shows that the country has got over it's desire to watch as much football as possible shown during restart. From SportsProMedia

Report: Sky’s Premier League viewership down as broadcasters fear oversaturation
Pay-TV network sees strong figures for big games undermined by less interest in other matches.

Posted: October 5 2020 By: Tom Bassam

- Sky’s 12 originally selected games see audience up 8% against 2019 equivalent fixtures
- Overall average per match down for Premier League’s main UK broadcaster

The Premier League’s main domestic broadcast partners, Sky and BT Sport, are concerned that the value of their contracts are being undermined by oversaturation, according to the Daily Mail.

With fans still shut out of stadia, every match from English soccer’s top flight is being aired live in the UK, and the Mail reports that Sky’s average per match viewership across the first three rounds of Premier League fixtures is slightly down on normal levels.

However, to illustrate the pay-TV broadcasters’ concerns, average viewership for the 12 matches originally picked by Sky for broadcast this season are reportedly up eight per cent compared to the equivalent fixtures last season, indicating the overall numbers are being dragged down by minimal interest outside of the big games.

Talks with the Premier League over the number of games being made available for domestic broadcast remain ongoing but Sky and BT Sport have announced their initial TV picks for the next three rounds of fixtures with just half of the matches selected.

Last month, British prime minister Boris Johnson delayed the partial return of fans that was planned for October due to a spike in Covid-19 cases. Unless Sky and BT broaden their match selections to all fixtures fans of certain teams will have no way to watch their club’s games live.

According to a recent report from The Times, one solution for the Premier League is allowing clubs to stream games not picked by Sky or BT Sport on their own websites on a pay-per-view (PPV) basis, with season ticket holders given free access.
A couple of interesting observations from @YannickRamcke about this report of view numbers falling for free to air games for Sky and BT in the new season - even with the glut of goals, upsets and crazy VAR decisions

https://twitter.com/YannickRamcke/statu ... 8825726984

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:55 pm

He probably isn't the only one, but Jorge Mendes has had a great transfer window, even in a Pandemic Economic crisis, it may be one of his best ever - from the New York Times

The Big Winner of Soccer’s Transfer Window Was Jorge Mendes
The coronavirus pandemic has sent the soccer industry reeling, but money still flows to Mendes, one of the world’s most powerful agents. He just wrapped up another extremely profitable summer.

By Tariq Panja Oct. 5, 2020 Updated 6:16 p.m. ET

The soccer economy is reeling. Every week there appears to be a new, dizzying figure highlighting the financial crunch the industry is facing as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. More than $115 million in losses at Barcelona alone. Hundreds of millions more in rebates to television rights holders. Across Europe, losses are expected to climb as high as $4.5 billion.

But the crisis has also created a few winners. Among the biggest has been Jorge Mendes, the Portuguese businessman and player agent, who for the last two decades has regularly taken a healthy slice from the $7 billion-a-year player transfer market. This year, despite soccer’s meltdown, Mendes appears to be doing better than ever.

In the transfer window that closed Monday night in Europe, Mendes sent Benfica’s Rúben Dias to Manchester City for $80 million, then replaced him in Lisbon with another client. He eased James Rodríguez out of Real Madrid’s doghouse and into a starring role at Everton, and arranged for Wolverhampton to sell the Irish defender Matt Doherty to Tottenham ($20 million) and the Portuguese forward Diogo Jota to Liverpool ($53 million).

And even as he completed those last two sales, Mendes helpfully persuaded Wolves to spend some of the money it received in his own shop: Wolves replaced Doherty with another Mendes client, Nelson Semedo, and used most of the money from Jota’s sale to recruit two rising talents — two more deals driven by Mendes — from F.C. Porto.

Permanently tanned, impeccably dressed and usually outfitted with a pair of glistening white earphones to field calls, Mendes is never off duty, never pausing in his efforts to cultivate new inroads that could yield new and richer deals. The Mendes business model is built upon relationships, and this summer’s transfer window has seen him leverage them to full effect.

Operating deftly in an unstable marketplace, Mendes worked with both financially stricken clubs looking to balance their books and with the few cash-rich outfits that saw opportunity amid the financial uncertainty. The roots of his business are now so entrenched, in fact, that in some cases he and his company are represented on all sides — buying club, selling club and player — of a given deal.

In one recent example — the move of Doherty, a 28-year-old Irish defender, from Wolverhampton to Tottenham — the guiding hand of Mendes touched every facet of the deal.

Wolves, you see, is owned by Fosun International, a Chinese conglomerate that also holds a minority stake in Gestifute. And Doherty, who turned to Mendes earlier this year to guide his career, left a club managed by Mendes’s first professional client, Nuno Espirito Santo, to join a team coached by one of Mendes’s most high-profile clients, José Mourinho.

Wolves’s relationship with Mendes has been the subject of scrutiny in English soccer, with rival clubs complaining about his close ties to Fosun, to Espirito Santo and to a handful of the players on the team’s roster. An investigation by the Football League, which is responsible for the three professional tiers of English soccer below the Premier League, found that there were no breaches in how Wolves — bolstered by a clutch of Mendes-linked players from Portugal — secured promotion to England’s top flight in 2018.

But Mendes’s dealings with the club, and others, run deep. Wolves — and Mendes — were also at the center of two curious trades this summer involving F.C. Porto, a Portuguese champion with a two-decade link to the agent.

On the cusp of a financial meltdown, and with large debts coming due, Porto turned to Mendes to find buyers for some of its up-and-coming stars. In a feat of alchemy that Mendes appears to have honed to perfection, Mendes convinced Fosun, his Chinese partners at Wolves, to pay what could be as much as $70 million for two highly rated though largely untested youngsters: Vitor Ferreira, a 20-year-old midfielder known as Vitinha, and Fábio Silva, an 18-year-old forward.

A quarter of the 40 million euro fee for Silva ended up in agents commissions, Porto announced, with most of it going to Mendes.

Across the board, from the unheralded signing to the headlining-grabbing move, Mendes left his imprint across Europe again. This summer’s deals alone have produced hundreds of millions of dollars in players sales, and — perhaps more important to Mendes and his agency, Gestifute — tens of millions of dollars in commissions.

“It seems he is not touched by the crisis,” said Pippo Russo, the author of a book that charted the rise of Mendes, 54, from Portuguese nightclub manager to one of soccer’s most dominant actors. “We can say the economic power network of Jorge Mendes resisted the coronavirus. It is as if he has the vaccine.”

The size of Mendes’s commission for Silva was eye-catching, and considerably above the industry average, but not uncommon: Last year, when Mendes arranged the $138 million sale of the Benfica teenager João Felix to Atlético Madrid, he reportedly earned about $35 million in the deal.

Still, it was another sign that whatever measures soccer’s governing body, FIFA, imposes to try to curb the excesses of the transfer market, the most canny operators are always able to generate sky-high returns.

Porto, which is regulated on the Portuguese stock market, declined to explain why it had agreed to part with 25 percent of the sale price for Silva in commissions.

A spokeswoman for Mendes declined to comment on any of Mendes’s past or present deals, saying the agent never discusses his business publicly.

Portuguese agents have privately fumed about Mendes’s influence over the industry for years. Yet Mendes is so well-connected that clubs routinely call on him to grease the wheels of deals even when he is not affiliated with the player in question. In January, for example, he was paid $8 million for helping arrange for Braga, a mid-ranking Portuguese team, to sell its young forward Francisco Trincão to Barcelona. Trincão’s registered agents were not involved in the sale.

In 2018, the president of Benfica, Portugal’s biggest team, described Mendes’s role as akin to a taxi service, ferrying out the club’s best assets in one direction and ferrying in millions of dollars in the other.

Last week, Mendes helped Benfica replenish its accounts once again. Benfica agreed to send striker Carlos Vinicius on loan to Tottenham under an agreement in which the London team will have to pay 40 million euros to make the deal permanent next summer, and then it sold Dias, a talented defender, to Manchester City for a fee of 68 million euros (about $80 million).

Dias’s arrival at Manchester City was bad news for Nicolas Otamendi, since he plays the same position. But Mendes had a solution there, too: Otamendi was promptly sold to Benfica for $18 million, slotting neatly into the space Dias had vacated. Mendes, as Otamendi’s agent, cashed in again.

His ties with clubs and executives have at times allowed Mendes’s operation to seem like a carousel on which a never ending cast of athletes floats from one club to another. In collecting commissions each time, Mendes directs a system that sometimes seems as sophisticated, and as meticulously choreographed, as anything a coach might direct on the field.

Mendes rarely gives interviews, but he was required in 2017 to explain how his business operated at a court hearing in Spain, where the authorities charged a number of his clients, including Cristiano Ronaldo and Mourinho, with tax evasion. Most of the cases were resolved with guilty pleas and fines.

Mendes told the Spanish court he knew nothing about his clients’ tax arrangements, saying he had hired professionals to deal with those affairs. His focus, he said, was purely on guiding their careers.

“I dedicate myself only to this, trying to find the best solutions for my players, and spending a year is like spending a minute,” he said, according to news reports at the time. “I try to dedicate my time to my family and spend my life working, on the phone until midnight.”

This year, even when soccer ground to a halt, Mendes kept right on working. He remains the agent always ready with a solution, providing clubs can afford his fee.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:11 am

Interesting Piece just published by the Times on the aid reportedly offered by the Premier League to the EFL - looks consistent with bailing out Leagues 1 and 2 and saying to the Championship we will lend you some money but it will cost (and while the rates resemble commercial ones they are likely to be much better than many of the clubs could get themselves)

Premier League ‘offering grant of less than £50m to bail out EFL clubs’
Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter - Tuesday October 06 2020, 12.01am, The Times

The Premier League is offering a grant of less than £50 million to bail out lower league clubs — with any additional money only available in the form of a repayable loan, EFL club sources have claimed.

The EFL says it needs up to £250 million to cover losses caused by the coronavirus pandemic but club sources say the offer on the table from the Premier League is worth less than one fifth of that amount, with another sum of about £100 million on offer as a loan with interest rates similar to those charged by banks.

It has been mentioned at EFL club meetings that the Premier League will earn about the amount of the proposed £50 million grant from a pandemic-related £8.4 million charge to each of the three clubs promoted to the top flight for this season and next season.

EFL clubs also claim that other conditions for the bailout, such as backing the Premier League against the FA over a free market for signing 18-to-21-year-old players from abroad after Brexit, are effectively a gun to their head. Premier League insiders insist there is no such take-it-or-leave-it offer.

An agreement over a bailout does not appear to be imminent, such is the distance between the Premier League and the EFL, and a meeting of top-flight chairmen planned for today to discuss the issue has been postponed by a week. But the urgency of the situation is growing, with some clubs in League One and League Two questioning whether they will be able to pay their wage bills at the end of this month.

The government has said it expects the Premier League to support the 72 EFL clubs financially as part of a commitment given by the top flight to allow it to finish last season via Project Restart. Ministers have committed to help other sports such as rugby union, likely to be in the form of long-term loans over 20 years at low interest rates.

A number of top-flight clubs are questioning whether they should be expected to bail out the EFL at all, particularly the 24 Championship clubs, and the 20 top-flight chairmen will have to sign off any proposal. The Premier League also wants some kind of guarantee over the return of fans this season, having lost £700 million collectively in the previous campaign, as well as £100 million a month this season while stadiums remain empty.

Steve Parish, the Crystal Palace chairman, spelt out a common view among top-flight clubs in a column in The Sunday Times, saying: “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. Premier League clubs, while they may have some wealthy shareholders, are not awash with cash.”

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Pstotto » Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:42 am

With inflatable stadiums and egg and spoon race in a sack the manager mentality, hop skip and a jump your football club, was BFC now Hitchin A-Riders and then Thanet-I-Land the year after.

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by superdimitri » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:05 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:28 pm
That rule was removed at the beginning of last season

Villa have plugged a lot of capital into the club via share issues - they have spent £225m (so far) since promotion but that is probably less than £60m in amortisation

They will have revenues above £150m even with Covid - so Premier League FFP (which has been rolled into the current season) gives them plenty of leeway - they believe they were on target to just meet it last season - this season's spend will be more of a challenge, I believe they are allowed to add more share capital if needed - it is a fixed (rather modest amount) but helps
So they bring something sensible in but take it out. I thought the reason they could spend so much was because they were exempt after being promoted.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:23 am

superdimitri wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:05 am
So they bring something sensible in but take it out. I thought the reason they could spend so much was because they were exempt after being promoted.
It surprised a number of observers when it was introduced, but was done ostensibly for competitive reasons - when you look at the financials the big six were growing non TV income much faster than the rest so could grow their wage bills higher much quicker (non TV revenue growth was allowed to be spent wages above the stipulated wage growth levels) - it was close to making the top six set in stone just because of wages (even when you include the Leicester title miracle).

previously clubs who paid wages below a threshold (which grew by the annual allotted increase) were exempt in the restriction of their wage rises. That was specifically aimed at newly promoted teams, though even then some did not qualify.

As for the other - Promotion doesn't make them exempt - just gives them more leeway £35m a season of losses opposed to £13m in the Championship or at the end of this season when FFP is assessed £83m over the rolling 3 year period. It is also possible if this season carries on behind closed doors the way it has started that FFP assessment could yet be pushed out even further, given this summer's precedent and the likelihood of further broadcast rebates.

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by superdimitri » Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:48 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:23 am
It surprised a number of observers when it was introduced, but was done ostensibly for competitive reasons - when you look at the financials the big six were growing non TV income much faster than the rest so could grow their wage bills higher much quicker (non TV revenue growth was allowed to be spent wages above the stipulated wage growth levels) - it was close to making the top six set in stone just because of wages (even when you include the Leicester title miracle).

previously clubs who paid wages below a threshold (which grew by the annual allotted increase) were exempt in the restriction of their wage rises. That was specifically aimed at newly promoted teams, though even then some did not qualify.

As for the other - Promotion doesn't make them exempt - just gives them more leeway £35m a season of losses opposed to £13m in the Championship or at the end of this season when FFP is assessed £83m over the rolling 3 year period. It is also possible if this season carries on behind closed doors the way it has started that FFP assessment could yet be pushed out even further, given this summer's precedent and the likelihood of further broadcast rebates.
Not sure I explained myself very well but I meant to say I thought the reason they didn't have to abide to the 5% rule was because they had just been promoted.

By scrapping that 5% rule they've effectively given a free ticket to any wealthy club owner to twist any increase in expenditure into some form of income to the club.

I'm guessing this means they have no interest in smaller clubs being in the premier league and want to do their best to favor clubs like Aston Villa as much as they can on promotion.

ffp is just a joke.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by aggi » Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:34 am

superdimitri wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:48 am
Not sure I explained myself very well but I meant to say I thought the reason they didn't have to abide to the 5% rule was because they had just been promoted.

By scrapping that 5% rule they've effectively given a free ticket to any wealthy club owner to twist any increase in expenditure into some form of income to the club.

I'm guessing this means they have no interest in smaller clubs being in the premier league and want to do their best to favor clubs like Aston Villa as much as they can on promotion.

ffp is just a joke.
I think there are two ways of looking at this.

One is the perspective above.

The second is that the FFP rules as they stood made the Premier League something of a closed shop. If we were taken over and the the new owners wanted to invest significantly in players then the old FFP rules wouldn't have allowed that. The bigger clubs who already had high wages were always in a position where they could keep ahead of the clubs with smaller wages.

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by superdimitri » Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:00 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:34 am
I think there are two ways of looking at this.

One is the perspective above.

The second is that the FFP rules as they stood made the Premier League something of a closed shop. If we were taken over and the the new owners wanted to invest significantly in players then the old FFP rules wouldn't have allowed that. The bigger clubs who already had high wages were always in a position where they could keep ahead of the clubs with smaller wages.
There was an inherent disadvantage if you were already in the league and seeking investment for sure. But if you had just been promoted from the championship the 5% rule didn't apply so teams were able to make that jump if they had big investment.

For small clubs, even us with investment the rule change was definitely a negative one. It just makes our day to day fixtures harder against more teams. If we did get investment the only advantage for us would be over promoted teams who perhaps couldn't make a big investment straight away.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by aggi » Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:53 pm

superdimitri wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:00 pm
There was an inherent disadvantage if you were already in the league and seeking investment for sure. But if you had just been promoted from the championship the 5% rule didn't apply so teams were able to make that jump if they had big investment.

For small clubs, even us with investment the rule change was definitely a negative one. It just makes our day to day fixtures harder against more teams. If we did get investment the only advantage for us would be over promoted teams who perhaps couldn't make a big investment straight away.
I can't say I agree with that. If we did get huge investment it would allow us to catch up or overtake (in terms of spending) established teams such as Everton in a single transfer window it we wanted.

Now I'm not saying that's a good idea but it's something we wouldn't previously have been able to do, the rule was much more about maintaining the status quo in terms of who spent what.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:59 pm

Following on from that Jorge Mendes piece from the New York Times last night, this is an interesting thread and statement from @MiguelDelaney

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/statu ... 9671948288

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by superdimitri » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:01 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:53 pm
I can't say I agree with that. If we did get huge investment it would allow us to catch up or overtake (in terms of spending) established teams such as Everton in a single transfer window it we wanted.

Now I'm not saying that's a good idea but it's something we wouldn't previously have been able to do, the rule was much more about maintaining the status quo in terms of who spent what.
I very much doubt that's something we would do anyway. Even with investment I can't see us going all out like that. All the rule change has done is made it possible for clubs with very wealthy owners to spend more like Aston Villa.

It's basically a change to make it easier for richly owned clubs to catch up with the top 6. But makes it harder for the rest of the league.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:02 pm

Meanwhile back to the Premier League supporting the future of the EFL - this thread from @UglyGame makes an interesting argument

https://twitter.com/uglygame/status/1313414362120499201

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by aggi » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:11 pm

superdimitri wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:01 pm
I very much doubt that's something we would do anyway. Even with investment I can't see us going all out like that. All the rule change has done is made it possible for clubs with very wealthy owners to spend more like Aston Villa.

It's basically a change to make it easier for richly owned clubs to catch up with the top 6. But makes it harder for the rest of the league.
I think you're agreeing with me here. In reality it will make it harder for us unless we get huge investment (which I don't think is going to happen) but it does give more options for small clubs with a wealthy benefactor.
This user liked this post: superdimitri

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:16 pm

The latest online edition of FC Business is out - as ever some interesting stuff, including the first I have ever seen on Everton's business strategy from club sources, amid the relentless promotional articles - which this month seemed to have a real focus on personal security for players and senior officials

https://cloud.3dissue.com/6374/7271/131 ... x.html?r=9

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:37 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:59 pm
Following on from that Jorge Mendes piece from the New York Times last night, this is an interesting thread and statement from @MiguelDelaney

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/statu ... 9671948288
I think I agree with Gary Lineker on agent fees - players should pay their agents themselves it shouldn't be an add-on to be paid by either of the clubs involved in the transfer. Both selling club and buying club can be free to include agents in assisting with their buying and selling, but (1) the clubs' agents should be independent of the player's agent and (2) should act for either the buying club or selling club, independently - with each club paying their own agents, as appropriate. Of course, it could also be that a club chooses to have the expertise to conclude transfer business within their own group of employees, assisted by lawyers and others as required.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:52 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:02 pm
Meanwhile back to the Premier League supporting the future of the EFL - this thread from @UglyGame makes an interesting argument

https://twitter.com/uglygame/status/1313414362120499201
Maybe there should be a "solidarity" surcharge on transfer fees. Maybe it could be structured similarly to stamp duty - the higher the transfer fee, the higher the percentage surcharge. Position the surcharge at a level where there is no surcharge on modest transfer fees - typically paid by L1/L2 clubs. Then rising percentage - 1% above £1 million, 2% above £2m, 5% above £10m and 10% above £20m. Add an additional 5% for all transfer fees to bring in players for clubs outside UK and Ireland (respecting the common travel area).

Without being exact with the maths, a structure as described should create a fund of £100 million for every £1 billion transfer fee spend. This could fund every EFL club £1 million p.a, with the smaller amounts flowing down to lower levels of the pyramid - and guaranteed £10 m p.a. into grass roots football.

Maybe this solidarity fund would help support the argument that many Premier League clubs want to bring in your players from abroad with no visa limits/restrictions.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:02 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:52 pm
Maybe there should be a "solidarity" surcharge on transfer fees. Maybe it could be structured similarly to stamp duty - the higher the transfer fee, the higher the percentage surcharge. Position the surcharge at a level where there is no surcharge on modest transfer fees - typically paid by L1/L2 clubs. Then rising percentage - 1% above £1 million, 2% above £2m, 5% above £10m and 10% above £20m. Add an additional 5% for all transfer fees to bring in players for clubs outside UK and Ireland (respecting the common travel area).

Without being exact with the maths, a structure as described should create a fund of £100 million for every £1 billion transfer fee spend. This could fund every EFL club £1 million p.a, with the smaller amounts flowing down to lower levels of the pyramid - and guaranteed £10 m p.a. into grass roots football.

Maybe this solidarity fund would help support the argument that many Premier League clubs want to bring in your players from abroad with no visa limits/restrictions.
It is something that DCMS members and fans in the lower leagues especially have been talking about for some time - it would however be very problematic if it only occurred in English football from both an international competition aspect and I suspect from an Investor perspective. And it could be argued that would weaken the Premier League commercially. It is all part of the problem of the PL and EFL operating in completely different spheres of business.

you would also say that it would likely end the Solidarity payments

A further problem if it was implemented at a global level is that FIFA would want to redistribute the monies for the "good of the global football family" rather than in the territories in which they were initially collected.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by aggi » Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:11 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:37 pm
I think I agree with Gary Lineker on agent fees - players should pay their agents themselves it shouldn't be an add-on to be paid by either of the clubs involved in the transfer. Both selling club and buying club can be free to include agents in assisting with their buying and selling, but (1) the clubs' agents should be independent of the player's agent and (2) should act for either the buying club or selling club, independently - with each club paying their own agents, as appropriate. Of course, it could also be that a club chooses to have the expertise to conclude transfer business within their own group of employees, assisted by lawyers and others as required.
A large reason that clubs end up paying player agents is taxes.

If a player pays their agent and effectively gets the club to pay for it (either by an increase in signing on fee or increased wages or whatever) then the player has to pay PAYE and NI on that amount and the club has to pay Er's NI.

On the other hand if a club pays it directly there aren't any of those additional taxes and it works out cheaper for them.

There are a few investigations going on around this at the moment.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:14 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:11 pm
A large reason that clubs end up paying player agents is taxes.

If a player pays their agent and effectively gets the club to pay for it (either by an increase in signing on fee or increased wages or whatever) then the player has to pay PAYE and NI on that amount and the club has to pay Er's NI.

On the other hand if a club pays it directly there aren't any of those additional taxes and it works out cheaper for them.

There are a few investigations going on around this at the moment.
Informative as ever Aggi, I am grateful to the amount I have learnt and continue to learn from you (and others) over the years

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by aggi » Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:24 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:14 pm
Informative as ever Aggi, I am grateful to the amount I have learnt and continue to learn from you (and others) over the years
And who says accountants are boring.

This was an extreme case a few years back at Newcastle https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... tax-system with actual dodgy payments rather than questionable allocations.

The latest figure I've seen is that it could be anything up to £150m of tax per annum (in the UK) that is being avoided through dual representation.

This is a good read on it https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-socce ... KKCN1NE1OS

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:38 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:59 pm
Following on from that Jorge Mendes piece from the New York Times last night, this is an interesting thread and statement from @MiguelDelaney

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/statu ... 9671948288
I suspect that that twitter thread about the agent want Euro 30m for a single transfer and this Guardian article about why Manchester United not going through with the Jadon Sancho are directly related

Manchester United abandoned Jadon Sancho bid as it would cost €250m
United’s figure includes money to Dortmund, player and agent
Club decided it would not be prudent in economic climate

Jamie Jackson - Tue 6 Oct 2020 12.49 BST Last modified on Tue 6 Oct 2020 15.41 BST

Manchester United walked away from signing Jadon Sancho after they concluded the transfer would cost close to €250m (£227m) because of Borussia Dortmund’s €120m price for the forward, plus his wage demand and the fee wanted by his agent, Emeka Obasi. United, it is understood, decided this was not viable in the coronavirus-affected economic climate.

This is not the first time they have abandoned a significant move because they felt it would be financially prudent. In January, they walked away from an attempt to land Erling Braut Haaland owing to the structure of a deal that included a high payment to the striker’s representative, Mino Raiola.

Dortmund encouraged United to talk with Sancho and Obasi, during which the club made clear their stance regarding finances and what they were willing to pay. Even if agreement had been reached on that front, there was the issue of Dortmund’s demand, which United balked at.

More minor elements such as the standard 4% levy to the Premier League on any transfer fee and additional costs including bonuses and national insurance are always factored in by clubs too.

United do not expect supporters to be admitted to games until March, meaning a further loss of match-day revenues. The club have also taken into account lost retail revenues and there is economic uncertainty throughout other areas of the business.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:05 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:02 pm
It is something that DCMS members and fans in the lower leagues especially have been talking about for some time - it would however be very problematic if it only occurred in English football from both an international competition aspect and I suspect from an Investor perspective. And it could be argued that would weaken the Premier League commercially. It is all part of the problem of the PL and EFL operating in completely different spheres of business.

you would also say that it would likely end the Solidarity payments

A further problem if it was implemented at a global level is that FIFA would want to redistribute the monies for the "good of the global football family" rather than in the territories in which they were initially collected.
I'd definitely keep it an English club surcharge, governed by the FA. Let the other countries make their own decisions.

Agree, if we get the structure right, the surcharge would replace all other solidarity payments - maybe, or maybe not, with the exception of parachute payments.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:12 pm

The Times now has a look at the role of Jorge Mendes asking if his grip on Wolves is too tight - I have used my free articles for the week so would appreciate if someone could transcribe

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-j ... -gd33wh8v6

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:16 pm

aggi wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:11 pm
A large reason that clubs end up paying player agents is taxes.

If a player pays their agent and effectively gets the club to pay for it (either by an increase in signing on fee or increased wages or whatever) then the player has to pay PAYE and NI on that amount and the club has to pay Er's NI.

On the other hand if a club pays it directly there aren't any of those additional taxes and it works out cheaper for them.

There are a few investigations going on around this at the moment.
Hi aggi, yes, I'm familiar with the tax dodging structures implicit in the buying club paying the player's agent. I'd treat any such payment as a benefit in kind on the player. Yes, they would pay both income tax and national insurance on the amount paid by the club on their behalf. As you say, the club would also pay ER's NIC - but, they would get corporation tax offset, if it is a proper business expense.

I'd keep the payment obligations separate and independent, similarly, the flow of funds. It's too easy for a club to agree to pay a player's agent into a bank account abroad. It wouldn't be impossible for a little "side deal" to be agreed: "well agree these fees, with a little extra on top - and can you in turn make an equivalent deposit into my personal bank account, somewhere that doesn't report back to HMRC...."

I wish the HMRC investigators "god speed" with their investigations. I've always taken the view that we should all pay our taxes according to the laws.

EDIT: Made this post before I'd read The Times article below.
Last edited by Paul Waine on Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:17 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:12 pm
The Times now has a look at the role of Jorge Mendes asking if his grip on Wolves is too tight - I have used my free articles for the week so would appreciate if someone could transcribe

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-j ... -gd33wh8v6
Hi CP, I'm on it.

Is Jorge Mendes’s grip on Wolves too tight?

Former FA chief calls for change in rules to limit agents’ huge influence, writes Martyn Ziegler
Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter
Tuesday October 06 2020, 5.00pm, The Times

The last transfer window will surely have banished any doubts regarding the overwhelming influence wielded by the super-agent Jorge Mendes at Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Wolves’ three most important signings and the three most lucrative sales involved players who are represented by Gestifute, Mendes’s agency. The value of the six deals came to about £140 million, and Gestifute has made many millions of pounds from the transactions.

The most remarkable of the deals was for Fábio Silva, the 18-year-old striker signed for a club-record €40 million (about £36 million) having played only 12 matches — scoring one goal — for Porto in the Portuguese league last season. Public documents registered by Porto on the Portuguese stock exchange revealed that the club paid Gestifute €7 million for that deal, 17.5 per cent of the fee they received, with another €3 million going to other intermediaries.

If as is possible, and indeed likely, Gestifute represented Wolves as the registering club as well as the player in the deal, the agency would have been paid by both those parties too.

The other five deals involving Mendes’s clients were: Diogo Jota to Liverpool (£45 million), Matt Doherty to Tottenham Hotspur (£14.7 million), Hélder Costa to Leeds United (£16 million), Nélson Semedo from Barcelona (£27.5 million) and the loan move of Vitinha from Porto, which is expected to become a permanent transfer next summer.

It is by no means unheard of for an agent to develop a close relationship with a club, but this goes even farther with Wolves and Mendes: for the past five years a subsidiary of Wolves’ Chinese owners Fosun International, Foyo, has had a 15 per cent stake in Start SGPS, Gestifute’s parent company.

The FA has rules on intermediaries that state: “Any individual or entity with an interest in a club shall not have any interest in the business or affairs of an intermediary or an intermediary’s organisation.” Nevertheless the governing body has approved the Wolves-Mendes relationship, despite complaints two years ago from the Leeds United owner Andrea Radrizzani that it was “not legal or fair”.

Although there is no suggestion of illegality, just how the relationship complies with the rules is not clear: the FA will not give details but merely states it has had confirmation from Wolves and relevant parties including Mendes about their ongoing compliance with its intermediary regulations.

The Doherty transfer to Spurs stands out as one where Mendes appeared to have a finger in every portion of the pie. As well as Gestifute’s links to Wolves’ owners, the club’s head coach, Nuno Espírito Santo, was the first client that Mendes ever had; the defender is his client; and Doherty was sold to Tottenham, whose head coach, José Mourinho, is also a long-time Mendes client.

Confirmation of exactly how many of the parties were represented by Gestifute or Mendes’s associates in Wolves’ six key transfers will not be published by the FA until next year, but last season the club had eight intermediary transactions where Gestifute or Talents Throne, the agency owned and operated by Mendes’s close associate Valdir Cardoso, were named as representing both player and club. In a further three intermediary transactions, Gestifute or Talents Throne represented just Wolves, and in three more the agency represented a Wolves player’s former club.

The practice of representing player and club has long been regarded by many in the game as a conflict of interest. Gary Lineker, the former England striker and BBC presenter, has called on Fifa to “introduce a rule where no person can act or receive fees for more than one party in any deal”, adding: “Clubs should not pay a player’s agent, whether selling or buying. The player should negotiate his commission with his agent.”

Fifa’s football stakeholders committee last year recommended that there should be regulation to limit multiple representations to avoid such conflicts, and a cap of 10 per cent of agents’ commissions on transfer fees, but so far no such measures have yet been implemented.

Greg Dyke, the former FA chairman, said regulation of agents in the game was urgently needed. He told The Times: “The role of agents is one of the great untold scandals of modern football. For years everyone has known one of the biggest problems in football — if not the biggest — are the agents and the inability of Fifa, Uefa and the FA to regulate them.

“Not only can they represent both the player and a club, you even get the ridiculous situation where they represent both sides of the same deal. All the clubs moan about agents and then they all pay them.

“This has to be done by Fifa and Uefa — the FA can’t attempt to take it on alone, and the last attempt by Fifa to regulate agents failed dismally.”

Two years ago, the Football Leaks cache resulted in European media organisations publishing emails from the Wolves executive chairman, Jeff Shi, who also works for Fosun, to a Gestifute contact in 2016 saying: “You always know the reason for the investment of Wolves is mainly because of our bet and trust on Jorge. Jorge can take Wolves as the most reliable partner and agency revenue source for long, long time.”

Gestifute and Wolves declined to comment when approached by The Times, but a source close to Mendes insisted that he deals with clubs from all over the world — for example Rúben Dias, the Portugal defender signed by Manchester City this window for £62 million, is another of his clients — and pointed out the Wolves-Gestifute relationship was cleared by the EFL and the FA in 2018.

“Jorge always looks for the best options for the players and for all clubs,” the source said.

Even in this era of relative austerity in the transfer market because of the Covid-19 pandemic, it appears that Mendes at least, and thanks in no small measure to his Wolves connections, has contrived to ensure that his money supply has remained in full flow.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:22 pm

Seems like Geo Politics might once again get in the way of the Premier League rescuing some of that lost Chinese TV revenue

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 6888241153

not that the government can actually pull the GB squad from an Olympics as the 1980 precedent showed

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/statu ... 8351467520

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:10 pm

@MiguelDelaney in the Independent asks

How did the Premier League spend £1.2billion in a pandemic?
There is a staggering disconnect between a summer of spending and some of the language used during the first few months of the crisis, not to mention the existential threat to the rest of the game

Miguel Delaney - Chief Football Writer - @MiguelDelaney - 5 hours ago

For all the intrigue about how Arsenal succeeded in the late signing of Thomas Partey, there was one detail that went largely unexplained. It is a detail that points to a far larger question in this transfer window as a whole, that goes way beyond north London.

How exactly did Arsenal afford a fee of £45million given, well… everything, not least a global pandemic that had supposedly crippled football’s finances?

The Independent has been told that the club owners, KSE, approved the purchase at Mikel Arteta’s request. Stan Kroenke has underwritten Arsenal’s transfer business and losses because of the pandemic.

It’s impossible not to think of the relatively paltry money saved on 55 redundancies on one side, not to mention the existential threat to so many clubs in the game at the other. There are then Daniel Levy’s words at the start of this crisis.

On 31 March, the Tottenham Hotspur chairman came out with the following.

“When I read or hear stories about player transfers this summer like nothing has happened, people need to wake up to the enormity of what is happening around us.”

So, what did actually happen?

Well, Tottenham themselves had their most ambitious summer since 2013. That summer, they brought in seven promising players, after the world-record £83.5m sale of Gareth Bale. This summer, they brought in six established players, after a £175m Bank of England loan to cover the impact of the crisis. That was to pay staff and operating costs. They then spent up to £15m back on Bale.

It all adds up to a total of £1.27billion spent by Premier League clubs this window.

That’s £861million when sales are taken into account, but that net is actually £80m more than the net spend of what felt a particularly free-spending summer in 2019, a window that saw almost exactly that difference spent on Harry Maguire alone.

A number of clubs who were earlier adamant that it wouldn’t be a normal window were actually right. Some ended up spending much more than usual.

There is a staggering disconnect between this and some of the language used during the first few months of this crisis, not to mention the existential threat to the rest of the game amid talk of a “football bailout”, as well as the wider global situation. Europe’s other leagues spent over £2bn less.

This at the very least warrants extra scrutiny, and certainly shouldn’t be treated as “business as usual”, to use Ed Woodward’s own phrase from April. Manchester United actually remained one of the more constrained clubs relative to their resources, although still spent over £40m net.

It just feels a little much to solely talk about success or failure in the market, and who “won the transfer window”, when there are so many losses all around the game.

So much for a summer of loans and compromised deals, where managers would have to get used to purer coaching.

A cynical view, uttered by one figure in the game, is that the “Premier League clubs played the whole thing to their advantage”. You could extend that to the almost industrial persistence of these crowdless matches, as the rest of the English game struggles to survive. It is this that gives ammunition to opportunistic politicians like Matt Hancock, and you might have to say fair ammunition.

A more pragmatic view, uttered by one source actually involved in the Championship, is that this is “investment” rather than spending.

“I think you almost have to say player expenditure as separate to what is going on in the rest of the game. The strength of the Premier League is its talent. That is what it succeeds on. That is what draws the interest. Clubs would also seek to rationalise their own individual expenditure, and argue they haven’t spent vast amounts themselves.”

Chelsea would for example point to the absence of any cuts within the club, and how most of their expenditure was generated from the sale of Eden Hazard and two windows without purchases.

The argument remains that a football club’s financial health is directly connected to their health on the pitch. By that rationale, Arsenal would argue that the money paid on Partey could sufficiently improve the team to secure a series of Champions League qualification, that brings in more, that secures jobs in future. This is why the Kroenkes sanctioned it. It was a calculated decision.

A counter point beyond their social responsibilities is that, even if clubs are just businesses in the most singularly depressing way, they need all these people to run those business properly: scouts, secretaries, kitmen. So, in letting them go, they have temporarily weakened their own structures and taken a short-term view.

It reflects how that rationale only ever seems applied in one direction, as well as the manner that the top end of the game has so fully embraced hyper-capitalism. Speculation will generally always trump any sense of responsibility to jobs or the wider game.

The bottom line is this: the Premier League clubs were saved by TV money, which also happens to be one of the primary reasons for financial disparity in the game.

It remains the great differential.

Its unequal distribution leads to this mass disconnect, between the bottom end and the top, between wage cuts and transfer spending… and now between the crisis the Premier League was supposedly engulfed in to the money they’ve been able to throw around again.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:21 pm

The Price of Football Blog takes a deep dive into the plugging of the financial hole in EFL finances

http://priceoffootball.com/the-same-deep-waters-as-you/

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:33 pm

It appears that Hillsborough has been mortgaged, you know the ground that Sheffield Wednesday sold to the another of it's owners companies without any cash changing hands, just promissory notes. I suspect it is about raising monies to help through these straightened times

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 3156712449

Royboyclaret
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 1273 times
Has Liked: 680 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Royboyclaret » Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:15 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:10 pm
@MiguelDelaney in the Independent asks

How did the Premier League spend £1.2billion in a pandemic?
There is a staggering disconnect between a summer of spending and some of the language used during the first few months of the crisis, not to mention the existential threat to the rest of the game

Miguel Delaney - Chief Football Writer - @MiguelDelaney - 5 hours ago

For all the intrigue about how Arsenal succeeded in the late signing of Thomas Partey, there was one detail that went largely unexplained. It is a detail that points to a far larger question in this transfer window as a whole, that goes way beyond north London.

How exactly did Arsenal afford a fee of £45million given, well… everything, not least a global pandemic that had supposedly crippled football’s finances?

The Independent has been told that the club owners, KSE, approved the purchase at Mikel Arteta’s request. Stan Kroenke has underwritten Arsenal’s transfer business and losses because of the pandemic.

It’s impossible not to think of the relatively paltry money saved on 55 redundancies on one side, not to mention the existential threat to so many clubs in the game at the other. There are then Daniel Levy’s words at the start of this crisis.

On 31 March, the Tottenham Hotspur chairman came out with the following.

“When I read or hear stories about player transfers this summer like nothing has happened, people need to wake up to the enormity of what is happening around us.”

So, what did actually happen?

Well, Tottenham themselves had their most ambitious summer since 2013. That summer, they brought in seven promising players, after the world-record £83.5m sale of Gareth Bale. This summer, they brought in six established players, after a £175m Bank of England loan to cover the impact of the crisis. That was to pay staff and operating costs. They then spent up to £15m back on Bale.

It all adds up to a total of £1.27billion spent by Premier League clubs this window.

That’s £861million when sales are taken into account, but that net is actually £80m more than the net spend of what felt a particularly free-spending summer in 2019, a window that saw almost exactly that difference spent on Harry Maguire alone.

A number of clubs who were earlier adamant that it wouldn’t be a normal window were actually right. Some ended up spending much more than usual.

There is a staggering disconnect between this and some of the language used during the first few months of this crisis, not to mention the existential threat to the rest of the game amid talk of a “football bailout”, as well as the wider global situation. Europe’s other leagues spent over £2bn less.

This at the very least warrants extra scrutiny, and certainly shouldn’t be treated as “business as usual”, to use Ed Woodward’s own phrase from April. Manchester United actually remained one of the more constrained clubs relative to their resources, although still spent over £40m net.

It just feels a little much to solely talk about success or failure in the market, and who “won the transfer window”, when there are so many losses all around the game.

So much for a summer of loans and compromised deals, where managers would have to get used to purer coaching.

A cynical view, uttered by one figure in the game, is that the “Premier League clubs played the whole thing to their advantage”. You could extend that to the almost industrial persistence of these crowdless matches, as the rest of the English game struggles to survive. It is this that gives ammunition to opportunistic politicians like Matt Hancock, and you might have to say fair ammunition.

A more pragmatic view, uttered by one source actually involved in the Championship, is that this is “investment” rather than spending.

“I think you almost have to say player expenditure as separate to what is going on in the rest of the game. The strength of the Premier League is its talent. That is what it succeeds on. That is what draws the interest. Clubs would also seek to rationalise their own individual expenditure, and argue they haven’t spent vast amounts themselves.”

Chelsea would for example point to the absence of any cuts within the club, and how most of their expenditure was generated from the sale of Eden Hazard and two windows without purchases.

The argument remains that a football club’s financial health is directly connected to their health on the pitch. By that rationale, Arsenal would argue that the money paid on Partey could sufficiently improve the team to secure a series of Champions League qualification, that brings in more, that secures jobs in future. This is why the Kroenkes sanctioned it. It was a calculated decision.

A counter point beyond their social responsibilities is that, even if clubs are just businesses in the most singularly depressing way, they need all these people to run those business properly: scouts, secretaries, kitmen. So, in letting them go, they have temporarily weakened their own structures and taken a short-term view.

It reflects how that rationale only ever seems applied in one direction, as well as the manner that the top end of the game has so fully embraced hyper-capitalism. Speculation will generally always trump any sense of responsibility to jobs or the wider game.

The bottom line is this: the Premier League clubs were saved by TV money, which also happens to be one of the primary reasons for financial disparity in the game.

It remains the great differential.

Its unequal distribution leads to this mass disconnect, between the bottom end and the top, between wage cuts and transfer spending… and now between the crisis the Premier League was supposedly engulfed in to the money they’ve been able to throw around again.
Have to say the one late deal that left me speechless last night was the Partey transfer to Arsenal, of all clubs. How many times have we identified Arsenal since the start of the pandemic as the one PL club that's likely to be most seriously affected by particularly loss of match-day receipts for the whole season, not to mention the further potential broadcast rebates. £96m plus an unknown level of rebates might be considered enough to show some restraint in the market, but instead they see fit to agree a £45m deal late last night.

Then we learn that Tottenham, on top of all their existing debt, take out a Bank of England loan for £175m. Not sure how all this is going to end but the evidence is stacking up that our club Burnley are literally operating in a different financial world to many others. Little wonder that Mike Garlick, to whom we owe so much, has seen enough and is poised to exit stage left.....Who can blame him ?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:23 pm

The Telegraph on the latest pressure from Football to get the government to allow fans back

Football launches fresh bid to force Government to allow return of crowds
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 06, 2020

The Government is under mounting pressure to review its ban on sporting crowds as a petition raced towards 100,000 signatures in hours on Tuesday night after football's power brokers went public with their frustrations.

Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, and his contemporaries at the Football Association, the English Football League and Women’s Super League signed a letter telling fans they were ready to welcome fans back.

Anger is intensifying across the cash-strapped sporting sector after a host of major concert venues announced they would be welcoming almost 5,000 spectators within two months.

"It is positive progress that major arts and music venues have been told they can run socially-distanced events indoors," their letter says. "And now football should be allowed to do the same - in highly regulated and stewarded outdoor environments."

After the letter was published, the EFL shared a petition which gathered 85,000 signatures within the space of five hours. "This petition is to ask the government to reconsider their judgment on not letting football fans back into the stadiums and reconsider doing this with the right safety measures in place surrounding the Covid-19," the petition said. At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Despite sporting crowds being forced potentially to stay away until April, the Royal Albert Hall and O2 arena are both open for Christmas. One source close to regular talks between the sporting governing bodies and Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, said the apparent inconsistency was also being raised during crunch meetings.

Open Letter to Supporters: Together We Will Get Fans Safely Back into Grounds
The letter, meanwhile, was aimed to reassure supporters that governing bodies are doing all within their powers to get fans back. "We will continue to urge the relevant authorities to let us, together, use innovative ways to bring fans safely back into football grounds, starting with a return of the test event programme," it adds. "If we do so, then the benefits will be felt not just by fans but throughout society and the economy."

In contrast to the easing of rules for the arts, professional sport is facing a fight for life after being told it may not be allowed crowds until April due to what the Government has described as a risk of "mingling" before and after matches.

However, Mr Dowden last week raised a glimmer of hope that crowds may yet be able to return to stadiums thanks to "technological innovations". A so-called freedom pass involving on-day Covid testing and the German stadium system which tracks local infection rates over a seven day period are among those options.

The letter, which is also signed by Mark Bullingham, the FA chief executive, adds that the game is ready to use innovations now to get crowds back, and pilots should resume immediately where safe to do so.

"Stadium environments can be modified and carefully managed," the group say. "Measures could include screening spectators before they enter the ground, installing temperature checks, requiring masks to be worn, one-way systems and providing a code of conduct for all those attending on a matchday. This will all be bolstered by deep-cleaning practices to help further reduce the risk of virus transmission.

"Clubs want to be pro-active on this matter and willing to consider measures both in the stadium and on the approach that will allay any concerns as to fans’ safety. From a travel perspective, clubs will work closely with experts and local authorities to model solutions relevant for each stadium to ease pressure on public transport, while extra parking facilities could be available so a greater proportion of you can travel by private car or bicycle."

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:32 pm

@DavidConn brings together Premier League transfer spend, Premier League bailout of the EFL and the campaign for fans back into the same article for the Guardian and concludes there is a financial crunch on the horizon - your shocked aren't you

Premier League's spending spree ignores financial crunch on horizon
Clubs want fans back to make up for lost revenue but the top flight still spent more than £1bn in the transfer window

David Conn - Tue 6 Oct 2020 19.08 BST Last modified on Tue 6 Oct 2020 19.59 BST

To contemplate Premier League clubs’ transfer window mega-spending, even in the best of times, is a time-honoured exercise in being flabbergasted, in shaking of heads that the game has gone, the world has gone mad. And however much English football still must do and decide upon as its teams’ shouts echo in the depths of its empty grounds, everybody can agree on one thing: these are not the best of times.

The £1.45bn spending on new players, mostly from overseas, is only 11% less than Premier League clubs spent in the far-off, carefree summer of last year, when this pandemic life could not have been imagined and had barely been conjured up in dystopian fiction. Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea have helped themselves more hungrily than the rest, spending a net £152m now they are unrestrained by their Fifa transfer ban. But still, Manchester City spent a combined £105m on two defenders, Rúben Dias and Nathan Aké, Arsenal £45m on Thomas Partey from Atlético Madrid, Liverpool paid Wolves £41m for Diogo Jota and so on, down the list with 28 purchases costing £20m or more.

Unknowable and never-to-be-declared millions will have been paid to agents for being the “intermediaries” – now the official football term, recognising they act for the clubs as well as the players; the Portuguese deal orchestrator Jorge Mendes probably chief among them.

It does not need saying that all this money has been spent in a grim, still barely believable health crisis, and its consequential hammering of normal life, social activity and football club gates. Within the game, even as the millions are paid and new stars given their run-outs to fake crowd excitement noise, all the talk is of financial alarm.

The EFL has it much worse of course, deprived of income from people deprived of their supporting experience, and with no vast TV deals that really pay the bills. While the Premier League and Championship got 2019-20 done in the end, League One and League Two and all leagues below them cut short their seasons because they could not afford to play. The pyramid is no more economically viable now.

The EFL chairman, Rick Parry, has for months maintained a figure of £250m as the cost of a rescue fund for last season and this, but the Premier League clubs have done all this spending on the latest fine players from Europe without a pound of that yet forthcoming. It is the easiest argument in football to run a finger down the Premier League’s most expensive signings this summer and find that just the top five would cover the shortfall for all 72 clubs of the Football League: Kai Havertz (£72m), Dias (£64.3m), Ben Chilwell (£50m), Timo Werner (£47.5m) and Partey (£45m).

Yet despite all this lavish acquisition, and the £8.65bn 2019-22 TV deals still being by far the richest in world football, the Premier League makes no secret of its own financial crunch, as it presses the government to allow some crowds back.

The figures are big and obvious: £300m paid in rebates to TV companies nationally and internationally for the disruptions and artificialities of last season, with probably more to come this season; a projected £700m lost if supporters are not allowed back all season. The collapse of the record-breaking TV deal in China, £175m lost this season and replaced with just a £10m upfront fee plus a subscription sharing arrangement, is just a little extra losses chucked in the pit.

In that context, clubs spending £1.2bn, £880m net, on players and their new wage bills looks like the latest, barmiest instalment of a series running since the First Division clubs of the Football League broke away in 1992 to form the Premier League. But the reaction from the EFL is generally, perhaps surprisingly, muted. Parry, the first Premier League chief executive and one of the breakaway’s architects, is a commercial football man, so he recognises that top clubs will buy players.

The solution is anyway more structural and deeper than pointing a futile finger at the latest spending; really, it has been unchanged for 28 years. The call for a rescue has prompted a rerun of dreary questions about whether the Premier League clubs even owe the EFL support. But that argument is not clever, it is just a negation of the game’s history and fabric, and the sporting fact that the football pyramid is connected and a glory to celebrate. The disruptive breakaway has always needed repair, and the mad gap between the divisions to be narrowed.

For those who assume the big clubs have no interest in that, there are some surprises around. Ed Woodward of Manchester United is understood to have proposed the Premier League borrow £1bn, given historically negligible interest rates, of which £300m could be available to the EFL, and the idea had some support, but the league centrally did not progress it. The game needs putting back together again, principally by the Premier League bringing the EFL into its TV deals in future, and if that can happen, the top clubs will have to support it. This is D-day, so if not now, when?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:59 pm

Not for the first time this year there are stories of a potential Championship breakaway are being mooted - from the Telegraph

Exclusive: Fears grow of Championship breakaway after 'rebel' chief executives meet secretly
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 06, 2020

English Football League clubs fear Championship breakaway threats loom again after "rebel" chief executives met secretly yesterday to voice frustrations at league officials over the rescue package saga.

A host of second tier club boards - including Cardiff City's on Telegraph Sport - have gone public with simmering anger at failures by both the EFL and Premier League to thrash out terms on a bailout for the pyramid.

Secret talks were held yesterday between a group of leading figures in the division, with sources saying they were keen to "get their ducks in a row" to ensure frustration was voiced at an EFL Board meeting on Thursday.

Consternation within the ranks is of serious concern to the EFL after a host of clubs - including Derby County and Stoke - previously met in autumn 2018 amid threats of a breakaway. Julian Aquilina, of Enders Analysis, recently told Telegraph Sport that the Championship had been "under-valued" in previous broadcasting rights sell-off.

Derby's chief executive Stephen Pearce will be present at the EFL board meeting tomorrow and was described by one source as "potential key figure" in the Championship retaining a united front.

Backing from Leeds United and Aston Villa can no longer be counted on due to the two clubs' promotion, but more than 10 Championship clubs previously expressed appetite for a break away to secure more TV money. The current five-year TV deal is be worth around £120m, a fraction of the £1.4billion carved up in the Premier League.

Championship executives were "appalled" to see transfer spending in the top tier hit almost £1.2billion this week. Mehmet Dalman, the Cardiff City chairman, believes around half of clubs' in the Championship may now be for sale because there is no end in sight for the financial disaster caused by Covid.

Ongoing reticence in agreeing to the EFL's £250million continues between Richard Masters, the top tier's chief executive, and Rick Parry, the EFL chairman.

A counter offer from the Premier League has been ruled out until next week, but several top tier clubs want any potential installments to be delayed even further to allow the second transfer window to close on Oct 16. A package for League One and League Two is certain to be reached, but the main reservation expressed by smaller top tier clubs is that their financial outlooks are already broadly in line with effective rivals in the division below under the parachute payment system. As a result, the Premier League is expected to require assurances that the second tier will curb excessive wage spending.

The last available accounts show Norwich, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and Wigan all spent beyond 150 per cent of revenue on wages. Reading were worst hit of all, recording figures of 226 per cent.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:18 pm

The Premier League will not be allowing clubs to stream games from their official websites

Clubs miss out on cash lifeline in major financial blow as Premier League will refuse to allow live-streams of matches on their official websites
- Clubs want to be able to give fans access to games on their official websites
- Opportunity to sell live streams would give them much needed financial boost
- It could help offset expected loss of £100m-a-month gate receipts during crisis
- But clubs have been told that the Premier League will not be permitting it
By MATT HUGHES and MIKE KEEGAN FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 6 October 2020 | UPDATED: 22:48, 6 October 2020

Premier League clubs have suffered another major financial blow after being told they will not be permitted to sell live-streams of matches on their websites.

Clubs have been lobbying the Premier League to follow the EFL by setting up a streaming service for matches not scheduled for live broadcast in the continued absence of fans. This could generate tens of millions of pounds each month across the 20 clubs to help offset the anticipated loss of £100million-a-month gate receipts.

The clubs will meet next week to finalise broadcasting arrangements for the rest of October, but Sportsmail has learned the Premier League will not bow to pressure to set up their own version of the EFL’s iFollow system.

The EFL have enabled clubs in their three divisions to recoup about one-third of lost gate money over the first four weeks of the campaign, if season-ticket sales are included.

Several clubs have pushed for a similar direct-to-consumer sales model to be introduced in the top flight for the 160 out of 380 matches that were not sold to rights-holders Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime, but this is not being pursued due to concerns that in the long term it would undermine the Premier League’s commercial value.

Sky Sports and BT have made clear their opposition to clubs streaming matches on the grounds that it would reduce the value of their exclusive live rights, leading to fears at the Premier League that they could demand rebates.

The 20 clubs have agreed to pay Sky a £330m rebate for the interruption to their schedules caused by last season’s shutdown, and are understandably anxious not to risk being liable for another refund.

There are also worries permitting clubs to stream games on their websites would lead to a row over how the extra income is shared, which could undermine the collective sales model that is widely credited with maintaining the Premier League’s competitive balance.

Clubs with larger fan-bases would inevitably sell more match-passes than the smaller clubs, providing them with ammunition to demand a bigger share of the revenue.

With the bid process for the next three-year TV rights cycle due to start in the new year, there is nervousness at the Premier League about taking a radical step that could jeopardise the collective approach that brought in £9billion for the current broadcast deals.

The Big Six achieved a significant victory by winning a vote to introduce a performance element to the distribution of overseas TV rights revenue for the first time last year, and will need no encouragement to push again for a bigger share of the pot.

As a result of these concerns, the Premier League are expected to continue releasing extra matches to Sky, BT and Amazon, while the BBC may also be given the occasional live game as they hold the main highlights rights through Match of the Day.

Post Reply