In a better late than never move and amid all the distractions created by yesterday's news the EFL are to do something absolutely right tomorrow - block takeovers of it's member clubs prior to taking the Owners and Directors test - from the Telegraph
Exclusive: Takeovers of EFL clubs to be banned unless approved in advance by governing body
BEN RUMSBY OCTOBER 12, 2020
Takeovers of English Football League clubs are to be banned on Tuesday unless they have been approved in advance by the governing body, in a rule change to prevent a repeat of the demise of Bury.
Those involved in the expulsion of a club from the professional and semi-professional men’s and women’s games will also be disqualified from running an EFL team, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
The changes to the EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test will be voted on on Tuesday by the league’s 72 members just over a year after Bury’s removal from their number.
It can also be revealed that Premier League clubs adopted the same rule changes last month in order that both they and their EFL counterparts were aligned.
Previously, someone was able to buy an EFL club before being subject to the Owners’ and Directors’ Test, something that saw Bury stuck with Steve Dale at the helm despite him failing to provide the proof of funding that ultimately led to the club’s expulsion.
Tuesday's vote will take place less than 24 hours after the shock resignation of EFL chief executive David Baldwin after less than four months in the role.
The former Burnley and Bradford City chief executive announced he would remain in post for another six months before leaving next year.
Baldwin said: “Clearly, accepting this position pre-Covid-19 means the situation is now very different to the one I originally envisaged coupled with it being a very different environment inside the EFL, when compared to the one I left in 2015-16. Taking those two factors into consideration and balancing the needs of my family, health and well-being, I feel the decision to leave is the right one.”
The EFL said Baldwin’s departure was unrelated to Project Big Picture and that the recruitment process for his replacement would begin with immediate effect.
Football's Magic Money Tree
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Telegraph keeps churning out it's articles around Project Big Picture
Project Big Picture loan system will help biggest clubs build super-squads with others forced to feed off them
TIM WIGMORE OCTOBER 12, 2020
In 2016, six days after Manchester City recruited him from Melbourne, Aaron Mooy was loaned to Huddersfield Town. At the end of the season, before making his City debut, Mooy was sold to Huddersfield for £10 million – more than it had cost for City Football Group to buy the player’s previous club, Melbourne.
This tale is a window into how football’s loan system has doubled as a way of enriching the sport’s elite. Mooy never figured in City’s first-team plans. But then the point of signing him was to provide extra funds for the club. He did not even have to play a minute to be a successful signing.
Mooy is merely a textbook example of how adroitly the wealthiest clubs have come to use the loan system. Chelsea, renowned as the most rapacious stockpilers of talent, have 29 players out on loan today – which actually represents a slight dip from their previous zenith of more than 40.
The vast majority of players loaned out will never make it at their parent clubs – but, by showing off their qualities, loan stints allow their parent clubs to sell them for higher fees. This increases their financial advantages and helps meet financial fair play regulations. The loan system “has become a key strategic element of asset development and ultimately profitability – orchestrated by the rich and powerful,” explains Alex Bond, an academic from Leeds Beckett University.
Fifa wants to change the system. In late February, after years of wrangling, Fifa proposed that clubs only be permitted to send eight players aged 22 or above out on loan – falling to six – to overseas clubs, with the same rules implemented for domestic loan deals.
“Project Big Picture” proposes that the loan system be restructured in the opposite way. Clubs would be allowed to have up to 15 players on loan at other domestic teams – and they would be allowed to loan up to four to a single English club, with the rule that a club can only loan two over-23 players from another club scrapped.
After the backlash against the proposals for formal B teams, the loan system would be a step towards ushering in B teams by another name. Even if lower-league teams fall short of being official feeder clubs, the retrenchment of lower league academies – Brentford disbanded theirs in 2016, realising that leading youth talents were moving to academies at bigger clubs – will continue apace.
The upshot will be that lower-league teams will be more reliant upon bigger clubs for talent. In the short term this provides talent on the cheap for lower-league sides. But it will also empower bigger clubs to be more selective about where they loan players to. Lower-league teams will become “training camps for assets of the elite”, warns Bond.
Making it easy for big clubs to stockpile talent will have broader ramifications. It will further encourage the biggest clubs to sign as many leading young players as possible, knowing that the loan system means they will benefit even if the players never get close to their first team. While the sport’s biggest teams, with loan managers charged with monitoring players’ loan spells, develop super-squads, teams in the lower echelons of the pyramid could depend more on loanees from Premier League clubs.
So the proposed changes to the loan system are more than just incidental details in Project Big Picture. Instead, they are a microcosm of football’s stratified ecosystem.
Project Big Picture loan system will help biggest clubs build super-squads with others forced to feed off them
TIM WIGMORE OCTOBER 12, 2020
In 2016, six days after Manchester City recruited him from Melbourne, Aaron Mooy was loaned to Huddersfield Town. At the end of the season, before making his City debut, Mooy was sold to Huddersfield for £10 million – more than it had cost for City Football Group to buy the player’s previous club, Melbourne.
This tale is a window into how football’s loan system has doubled as a way of enriching the sport’s elite. Mooy never figured in City’s first-team plans. But then the point of signing him was to provide extra funds for the club. He did not even have to play a minute to be a successful signing.
Mooy is merely a textbook example of how adroitly the wealthiest clubs have come to use the loan system. Chelsea, renowned as the most rapacious stockpilers of talent, have 29 players out on loan today – which actually represents a slight dip from their previous zenith of more than 40.
The vast majority of players loaned out will never make it at their parent clubs – but, by showing off their qualities, loan stints allow their parent clubs to sell them for higher fees. This increases their financial advantages and helps meet financial fair play regulations. The loan system “has become a key strategic element of asset development and ultimately profitability – orchestrated by the rich and powerful,” explains Alex Bond, an academic from Leeds Beckett University.
Fifa wants to change the system. In late February, after years of wrangling, Fifa proposed that clubs only be permitted to send eight players aged 22 or above out on loan – falling to six – to overseas clubs, with the same rules implemented for domestic loan deals.
“Project Big Picture” proposes that the loan system be restructured in the opposite way. Clubs would be allowed to have up to 15 players on loan at other domestic teams – and they would be allowed to loan up to four to a single English club, with the rule that a club can only loan two over-23 players from another club scrapped.
After the backlash against the proposals for formal B teams, the loan system would be a step towards ushering in B teams by another name. Even if lower-league teams fall short of being official feeder clubs, the retrenchment of lower league academies – Brentford disbanded theirs in 2016, realising that leading youth talents were moving to academies at bigger clubs – will continue apace.
The upshot will be that lower-league teams will be more reliant upon bigger clubs for talent. In the short term this provides talent on the cheap for lower-league sides. But it will also empower bigger clubs to be more selective about where they loan players to. Lower-league teams will become “training camps for assets of the elite”, warns Bond.
Making it easy for big clubs to stockpile talent will have broader ramifications. It will further encourage the biggest clubs to sign as many leading young players as possible, knowing that the loan system means they will benefit even if the players never get close to their first team. While the sport’s biggest teams, with loan managers charged with monitoring players’ loan spells, develop super-squads, teams in the lower echelons of the pyramid could depend more on loanees from Premier League clubs.
So the proposed changes to the loan system are more than just incidental details in Project Big Picture. Instead, they are a microcosm of football’s stratified ecosystem.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
seems that 13 clubs have now come out against Project Big Picture according to the man who first broke the story
Exclusive: Opponents to Project Big Picture say plan is 'dead in the water' as English football is split in two
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 12, 2020
The Premier League opponents to Project Big Picture (PBP) have declared it “dead in the water”, with at least 13 of the member clubs understood to be united against it ahead of what promises to be a defining shareholders meeting on Wednesday.
English football has been split in two over the astonishing proposals authored by Liverpool and Manchester United - and revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday - with virtually blanket support for them from the 72 clubs of the Football League (EFL).
Sources have indicated that in the face of majority opposition from the Premier League, the only way forward for Liverpool and United - and any other leading clubs who throw their support in with the two - would to be leave and join the EFL.
Telegraph Sport understands that neither Liverpool nor United’s American ownerships are prepared to walk away from the Premier League - leaving the situation at deadlock. The bombshell proposals, which include handing unprecedented control to the wealthiest clubs, an 18-team top flight, a £250 million bailout for the EFL and 25 per cent of annual revenue to the EFL, need a 14-club majority to be passed. There seems no prospect of that happening at Wednesday’s meeting or beyond.
Sources declared the chances of a 14-vote approval “dead in the water” as clubs opposed to the plan privately discussed their options on Monday ahead of Wednesday's meeting.
What is not yet clear is how prepared the other four members of the so-called big six - Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City - would be to back the plan. There are also questions over Everton’s intentions - the club has ambitions of reaching the Champions League and would qualify for “special voting rights” under PBP owing to its longevity in the top flight.
As of Monday, none of those seven clubs were prepared publically to declare their current position on PBP. EFL clubs were given further details of what the PBP finances would mean for them. Under the PBP proposals, the Championship clubs would see their total annual revenue shoot up to £568.8m from the 2022-2023 season, with the first-place club earning £26.7m compared to £8.2m currently.
League One clubs would earn between £3.4m and £4.5m annually, up from a standard payment of £1.2m. League Two clubs would each earn £3.2m annually, up from £900,000. So far, there has been unanimous support from the EFL clubs.
The Premier League have told its clubs that the PBP sums do not add up – with the whole projection based on an unrealistic 10 per cent uplift in broadcast rights for the next cycle, starting in season 2022-2023. The Premier League’s analysis says clubs outside the elite in the proposed 18-team division would earn less. The league’s status as the most equitable in European football would be lost and so too, many fear, its competitiveness. The ratio of earnings differential from top club to bottom, currently 1:1.7, would fall to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted, the clubs have been told.
The Football Association is yet to declare on the record whether it would seek to block PBP, but it is opposed to the scrapping of the Community Shield game in August that raises funds for charity. There will be emergency meetings held by the 24 Championship clubs on Tuesday, the EFL board on Wednesday and the FA Council on Thursday.
Premier League clubs opposed to the plan have also said in private that they will no longer deal with EFL chairman Rick Parry now that they know he has negotiated with Liverpool and United behind their backs for three years. The clubs believe Parry formulated a plan which was ultimately designed to persuade the so-called Big Six to break away from the Premier League. The EFL chief executive David Baldwin unexpectedly quit on Monday although the organisation said it was unrelated to the PBP disclosure.
The Prime Minister joined the debate, condemning the “backroom dealing” and threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League could not agree a bailout for the EFL "within the existing measures". A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: “It’s clear that this proposal does not command support throughout the Premier League - it is exactly this type of backroom dealing that undermines trust in football governance."
Exclusive: Opponents to Project Big Picture say plan is 'dead in the water' as English football is split in two
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 12, 2020
The Premier League opponents to Project Big Picture (PBP) have declared it “dead in the water”, with at least 13 of the member clubs understood to be united against it ahead of what promises to be a defining shareholders meeting on Wednesday.
English football has been split in two over the astonishing proposals authored by Liverpool and Manchester United - and revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday - with virtually blanket support for them from the 72 clubs of the Football League (EFL).
Sources have indicated that in the face of majority opposition from the Premier League, the only way forward for Liverpool and United - and any other leading clubs who throw their support in with the two - would to be leave and join the EFL.
Telegraph Sport understands that neither Liverpool nor United’s American ownerships are prepared to walk away from the Premier League - leaving the situation at deadlock. The bombshell proposals, which include handing unprecedented control to the wealthiest clubs, an 18-team top flight, a £250 million bailout for the EFL and 25 per cent of annual revenue to the EFL, need a 14-club majority to be passed. There seems no prospect of that happening at Wednesday’s meeting or beyond.
Sources declared the chances of a 14-vote approval “dead in the water” as clubs opposed to the plan privately discussed their options on Monday ahead of Wednesday's meeting.
What is not yet clear is how prepared the other four members of the so-called big six - Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City - would be to back the plan. There are also questions over Everton’s intentions - the club has ambitions of reaching the Champions League and would qualify for “special voting rights” under PBP owing to its longevity in the top flight.
As of Monday, none of those seven clubs were prepared publically to declare their current position on PBP. EFL clubs were given further details of what the PBP finances would mean for them. Under the PBP proposals, the Championship clubs would see their total annual revenue shoot up to £568.8m from the 2022-2023 season, with the first-place club earning £26.7m compared to £8.2m currently.
League One clubs would earn between £3.4m and £4.5m annually, up from a standard payment of £1.2m. League Two clubs would each earn £3.2m annually, up from £900,000. So far, there has been unanimous support from the EFL clubs.
The Premier League have told its clubs that the PBP sums do not add up – with the whole projection based on an unrealistic 10 per cent uplift in broadcast rights for the next cycle, starting in season 2022-2023. The Premier League’s analysis says clubs outside the elite in the proposed 18-team division would earn less. The league’s status as the most equitable in European football would be lost and so too, many fear, its competitiveness. The ratio of earnings differential from top club to bottom, currently 1:1.7, would fall to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted, the clubs have been told.
The Football Association is yet to declare on the record whether it would seek to block PBP, but it is opposed to the scrapping of the Community Shield game in August that raises funds for charity. There will be emergency meetings held by the 24 Championship clubs on Tuesday, the EFL board on Wednesday and the FA Council on Thursday.
Premier League clubs opposed to the plan have also said in private that they will no longer deal with EFL chairman Rick Parry now that they know he has negotiated with Liverpool and United behind their backs for three years. The clubs believe Parry formulated a plan which was ultimately designed to persuade the so-called Big Six to break away from the Premier League. The EFL chief executive David Baldwin unexpectedly quit on Monday although the organisation said it was unrelated to the PBP disclosure.
The Prime Minister joined the debate, condemning the “backroom dealing” and threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League could not agree a bailout for the EFL "within the existing measures". A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: “It’s clear that this proposal does not command support throughout the Premier League - it is exactly this type of backroom dealing that undermines trust in football governance."
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
FWIW this is my take on "Big Picture"
"There are intelligent people on the Liverpool and Manchester United boards. They will know you don’t present a coup that doesn’t offer those outside the coup any upside. The fact that this is the best they can come up with after three years of planning is concerning. It is a huge misjudgement and any idea that either of these clubs have interests for the future of the game beyond their own very narrow interests is blown away. The one positive is that their naked self interest is now exposed for all to see. It should never be forgotten that two of the finest clubs (in football terms) do not respect or value the game, nor the competition that creates their fortunes."
https://theesk.org/2020/10/12/project-b ... liverpool/
"There are intelligent people on the Liverpool and Manchester United boards. They will know you don’t present a coup that doesn’t offer those outside the coup any upside. The fact that this is the best they can come up with after three years of planning is concerning. It is a huge misjudgement and any idea that either of these clubs have interests for the future of the game beyond their own very narrow interests is blown away. The one positive is that their naked self interest is now exposed for all to see. It should never be forgotten that two of the finest clubs (in football terms) do not respect or value the game, nor the competition that creates their fortunes."
https://theesk.org/2020/10/12/project-b ... liverpool/
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
What strikes me Paul about the EFL clubs slavering at the prospect of 25% of Central funds is that they are thinking 25% of Circa £3 billion when after all the changes take effect it is likely central funds are going to be anything up to 60% - 70% less - that adds up to not much more than they get now. I get to that figure via the huge devaluation in overseas rights (clubs will sell the most attractive games themselves) and falling domestic rights. Under the plan the big 6 are likely to earn even more via summer football (especially a UEFA endorsed ICC), post 2024 UEFA Club competitions and of course those lucrative broadcast rights. I would fully expect a club like Burnley to see a minimum of a 50% drop (likely to be much more) in TV income should the proposals go through as they currently standThe esk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:13 amFWIW this is my take on "Big Picture"
"There are intelligent people on the Liverpool and Manchester United boards. They will know you don’t present a coup that doesn’t offer those outside the coup any upside. The fact that this is the best they can come up with after three years of planning is concerning. It is a huge misjudgement and any idea that either of these clubs have interests for the future of the game beyond their own very narrow interests is blown away. The one positive is that their naked self interest is now exposed for all to see. It should never be forgotten that two of the finest clubs (in football terms) do not respect or value the game, nor the competition that creates their fortunes."
https://theesk.org/2020/10/12/project-b ... liverpool/
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Yet more details emerging in the Telegraph's policy of gradual reveal - the mechanics of this are barmy, FSG have constantly moaned about clubs in the bottom half of the league not spending enough to make them more attractive/competitive for international audiences, now they want them to spend even less. Reading this all I see is the movement of the Championship financial madness to the bottom half of the Premier League the risks are just preposterous.
Revealed: Premier League clubs outside Big Six fear they will be worse off under Project Big Picture proposals
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 12, 2020
Premier League clubs outside the elite fear they would be worse off under the terms proposed by Project Big Picture (PBP), the Liverpool and Manchester United-driven restructure of the English game which would see the top flight reduced from 20 to 18 clubs.
Since Telegraph Sport revealed the details of the plan, already on its 18th draft, and lead by Liverpool and United, the rest of the clubs in the league have pored over the details of how revenue would be divided at the proposed PBP start point - the 2022-2023 season.
The latest PBP draft is currently doing the rounds at Premier League clubs with projections for what each club would earn in 2022-2023 compared to the earnings by club for the 2019-2020 season. The Premier League has told clubs that its central principle of being the most equitable league in Europe is under threat from the PBP proposals, going from a ratio of 1:1.7 currently between top and bottom to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted.
Under the new PBP terms, for the first three seasons of its operation, all Premier League clubs would receive a minimum of £100 million per season. Calculated earnings would be supplemented to reach that threshold. Nevertheless, newly-promoted clubs would be obliged to put aside £25m from each of their first two years in the division, repayable in the case of them being relegated. If the club stayed in the division for five years, that £50m would be returned to them.
From the 2023-2024 season, the PBP proposals abolish parachute payments into the Championship which have traditionally guaranteed a soft landing for relegated clubs. For 2022-2023, PBP proposes a transitional arrangement for clubs already benefiting from parachute payments but those clubs would only be permitted to spend those funds on the contracts of players signed while they were in the Premier League.
Under the new PBP formula, 25 per cent of a club’s total earnings from central revenue would be based on the average position they have achieved in the three previous seasons instead of the number of times they have appeared live on television - as it is currently. The remainder of the calculation would stay the same, with 50 per cent of central revenues distributed equally and the remaining 25 per cent on final league position.
That would mean newly-promoted teams would earn much less, as a disadvantage from a lower average position over the previous three seasons. In the latest PBP document which has revenue modelling for the proposed 18-club 2022-2023 Premier League season, five clubs earn less than £100m, with all of them paid the balance to reach that minimum. Those projections are based on an estimated 10 per cent uplift in revenues across the board.
Premier League clubs modelling the PBP proposals believe that by the 2025-2026 season – when the £100m per club guarantee has expired - a newly-promoted club would have budget for earning between £40m to £50m should it finish in last place. Its total earnings would be around £70m to £75m and it would be obliged to bank £25m putting total earnings at £40m to £50m. The bottom-placed club currently earns more than £100m.
Premier League clubs are also concerned that they will have less access to borrowing, with their banks often prepared to use the guarantee of parachute payments as security on loans in case of relegation. Any new Premier League club owner would also be restricted by a PBP proposal to comply with Uefa financial fair play rules which prohibits investment of any more than €35m (£31.6m) over three years. The current Premier League rules allow owner-investment of £105m over three years.
Revealed: Premier League clubs outside Big Six fear they will be worse off under Project Big Picture proposals
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 12, 2020
Premier League clubs outside the elite fear they would be worse off under the terms proposed by Project Big Picture (PBP), the Liverpool and Manchester United-driven restructure of the English game which would see the top flight reduced from 20 to 18 clubs.
Since Telegraph Sport revealed the details of the plan, already on its 18th draft, and lead by Liverpool and United, the rest of the clubs in the league have pored over the details of how revenue would be divided at the proposed PBP start point - the 2022-2023 season.
The latest PBP draft is currently doing the rounds at Premier League clubs with projections for what each club would earn in 2022-2023 compared to the earnings by club for the 2019-2020 season. The Premier League has told clubs that its central principle of being the most equitable league in Europe is under threat from the PBP proposals, going from a ratio of 1:1.7 currently between top and bottom to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted.
Under the new PBP terms, for the first three seasons of its operation, all Premier League clubs would receive a minimum of £100 million per season. Calculated earnings would be supplemented to reach that threshold. Nevertheless, newly-promoted clubs would be obliged to put aside £25m from each of their first two years in the division, repayable in the case of them being relegated. If the club stayed in the division for five years, that £50m would be returned to them.
From the 2023-2024 season, the PBP proposals abolish parachute payments into the Championship which have traditionally guaranteed a soft landing for relegated clubs. For 2022-2023, PBP proposes a transitional arrangement for clubs already benefiting from parachute payments but those clubs would only be permitted to spend those funds on the contracts of players signed while they were in the Premier League.
Under the new PBP formula, 25 per cent of a club’s total earnings from central revenue would be based on the average position they have achieved in the three previous seasons instead of the number of times they have appeared live on television - as it is currently. The remainder of the calculation would stay the same, with 50 per cent of central revenues distributed equally and the remaining 25 per cent on final league position.
That would mean newly-promoted teams would earn much less, as a disadvantage from a lower average position over the previous three seasons. In the latest PBP document which has revenue modelling for the proposed 18-club 2022-2023 Premier League season, five clubs earn less than £100m, with all of them paid the balance to reach that minimum. Those projections are based on an estimated 10 per cent uplift in revenues across the board.
Premier League clubs modelling the PBP proposals believe that by the 2025-2026 season – when the £100m per club guarantee has expired - a newly-promoted club would have budget for earning between £40m to £50m should it finish in last place. Its total earnings would be around £70m to £75m and it would be obliged to bank £25m putting total earnings at £40m to £50m. The bottom-placed club currently earns more than £100m.
Premier League clubs are also concerned that they will have less access to borrowing, with their banks often prepared to use the guarantee of parachute payments as security on loans in case of relegation. Any new Premier League club owner would also be restricted by a PBP proposal to comply with Uefa financial fair play rules which prohibits investment of any more than €35m (£31.6m) over three years. The current Premier League rules allow owner-investment of £105m over three years.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
David Conn in the Guardian on how the revelation of Project Big Picture has changed everything
How Project Big Picture changed the politics of football in one swoop
Premier League
Liverpool’s and Manchester United’s plan has been roundly condemned by the Premier League, but leaves the English game in uncharted territory
David Conn Tue 13 Oct 2020 08.00 BST
The Premier League’s 20 clubs will assemble for a scheduled meeting this week with an agenda spectacularly disrupted by the Project Big Picture proposals of Liverpool and Manchester United to reshape the league itself and the English football pyramid. The other four clubs in the so-called big six are said to have been initially infuriated when the plan, for overwhelming voting control in their hands allied to a much fairer sharing of money with the EFL, was leaked on Sunday, and some time was spent assuring them Liverpool and United were not the source of it.
Liverpool’s majority owner John W Henry, the main driving force behind proposals he has worked on since 2017, is said to have been undeterred by the largely hostile reaction in the media and of the government, and to be preparing to press the case further. The EFL chairman, Rick Parry, has stressed his 72 clubs’ support and gratitude for the plan, which after months of delay by the Premier League centrally, offers to pay the EFL a £250m crisis fund immediately, and a transformational future 25% of net Premier League TV deals.
With salary caps now agreed in League One and League Two, and proposed for the Championship, Parry argues that financial discipline will be in place for EFL clubs to accept the unexpected windfall of redistribution from the Premier League, without blowing it on excessive wages to players.
The major sticking point, which led to a government statement rejecting the plans out of hand, is the aggressive move for the six – United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs – to take control of the Premier League voting rights.
The plan, summarised by the EFL rather than Liverpool or United directly, envisage “special voting rights” being given to the six, plus three more, Everton, West Ham and Southampton, who have been in the Premier League longest of the other 14. But of those nine clubs a majority of only six would have the right to make crucial rules, including deciding on future TV contracts, and appointing or removing a chief executive. There is also the proposal, so far unexplained, that six of these clubs could wield that power to block a new owner of a club even if approved by the Premier League board.
The Premier League centrally has publicly denounced the plan, but the political alignment in football has suddenly been changed, as well as the parameters of negotiation with the EFL. If the four other top clubs come round to being tentatively supportive of the proposals, even if they were not ready for them to be made public, the Premier League as a body will be expressing its fierce opposition on behalf of only 14 clubs, three of whom will be relegated.
It will be difficult to find many owners among the 72 EFL clubs to oppose finally being granted the rescue package in this unprecedented financial crisis, and a previously unimagined 25% future redistribution from the Premier League. So in effect the six biggest clubs in the country could be joining with 72, leaving 14 Premier League clubs arguing for the status quo, in which they currently receive upwards of £100m TV money each.
Henry, who has not spoken publicly yet, is said by Parry to have genuinely informed himself about the English football pyramid since his investment group, FSG, bought Liverpool in 2010 then overhauled the club into European and Premier League champions.
Henry has understood that the 1992 formation of the Premier League was a breakaway of the Football League’s First Division clubs from sharing their TV money with the other three divisions, and since then the exponential growth of top-flight TV deals has enormously widened the financial gap. Parry has said that Henry has come to care seriously about this, and shares the view that the gap is damaging to the Championship and EFL more widely, and that parachute payments to relegated Premier League clubs are unfair and further distort the finances.
Others see Henry’s motivation springing from a more hard-headed recognition that the strength of the big clubs relies on a strong pyramid below. The plan to secure voting rights is said to be determined, springing from a view that the six should not be outvoted by smaller clubs that could be in the Premier League for only a season or two.
EFL clubs have also been exasperated with Premier League delays in discussing the £250m rescue fund during the months of the crisis, and various demands made in return for it. Parry produced that £250m figure in the spring as the financial cost of football shutting down then playing without supporters, but no agreement has been forthcoming from the Premier League administration in the negotiations.
Instead, it is reported that the Premier League centrally, led by the chief executive Richard Masters, has most recently offered only £50m, with a further £100m repayable loan. The Premier League is also said to have been asking for commitments in return for this bailout, including the EFL falling in line with its rules for the threshold at which the season could be curtailed if games are suspended again. Some EFL club owners are said to have begun wondering if it is even worth accepting the Premier League’s help, if it is so meagre and with so many strings attached.
Then the plans worked up by Liverpool and Manchester United finally and prematurely emerged, and the terms of engagement, for the 14 and for the Premier League’s chief executive, have been scrambled.
How Project Big Picture changed the politics of football in one swoop
Premier League
Liverpool’s and Manchester United’s plan has been roundly condemned by the Premier League, but leaves the English game in uncharted territory
David Conn Tue 13 Oct 2020 08.00 BST
The Premier League’s 20 clubs will assemble for a scheduled meeting this week with an agenda spectacularly disrupted by the Project Big Picture proposals of Liverpool and Manchester United to reshape the league itself and the English football pyramid. The other four clubs in the so-called big six are said to have been initially infuriated when the plan, for overwhelming voting control in their hands allied to a much fairer sharing of money with the EFL, was leaked on Sunday, and some time was spent assuring them Liverpool and United were not the source of it.
Liverpool’s majority owner John W Henry, the main driving force behind proposals he has worked on since 2017, is said to have been undeterred by the largely hostile reaction in the media and of the government, and to be preparing to press the case further. The EFL chairman, Rick Parry, has stressed his 72 clubs’ support and gratitude for the plan, which after months of delay by the Premier League centrally, offers to pay the EFL a £250m crisis fund immediately, and a transformational future 25% of net Premier League TV deals.
With salary caps now agreed in League One and League Two, and proposed for the Championship, Parry argues that financial discipline will be in place for EFL clubs to accept the unexpected windfall of redistribution from the Premier League, without blowing it on excessive wages to players.
The major sticking point, which led to a government statement rejecting the plans out of hand, is the aggressive move for the six – United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs – to take control of the Premier League voting rights.
The plan, summarised by the EFL rather than Liverpool or United directly, envisage “special voting rights” being given to the six, plus three more, Everton, West Ham and Southampton, who have been in the Premier League longest of the other 14. But of those nine clubs a majority of only six would have the right to make crucial rules, including deciding on future TV contracts, and appointing or removing a chief executive. There is also the proposal, so far unexplained, that six of these clubs could wield that power to block a new owner of a club even if approved by the Premier League board.
The Premier League centrally has publicly denounced the plan, but the political alignment in football has suddenly been changed, as well as the parameters of negotiation with the EFL. If the four other top clubs come round to being tentatively supportive of the proposals, even if they were not ready for them to be made public, the Premier League as a body will be expressing its fierce opposition on behalf of only 14 clubs, three of whom will be relegated.
It will be difficult to find many owners among the 72 EFL clubs to oppose finally being granted the rescue package in this unprecedented financial crisis, and a previously unimagined 25% future redistribution from the Premier League. So in effect the six biggest clubs in the country could be joining with 72, leaving 14 Premier League clubs arguing for the status quo, in which they currently receive upwards of £100m TV money each.
Henry, who has not spoken publicly yet, is said by Parry to have genuinely informed himself about the English football pyramid since his investment group, FSG, bought Liverpool in 2010 then overhauled the club into European and Premier League champions.
Henry has understood that the 1992 formation of the Premier League was a breakaway of the Football League’s First Division clubs from sharing their TV money with the other three divisions, and since then the exponential growth of top-flight TV deals has enormously widened the financial gap. Parry has said that Henry has come to care seriously about this, and shares the view that the gap is damaging to the Championship and EFL more widely, and that parachute payments to relegated Premier League clubs are unfair and further distort the finances.
Others see Henry’s motivation springing from a more hard-headed recognition that the strength of the big clubs relies on a strong pyramid below. The plan to secure voting rights is said to be determined, springing from a view that the six should not be outvoted by smaller clubs that could be in the Premier League for only a season or two.
EFL clubs have also been exasperated with Premier League delays in discussing the £250m rescue fund during the months of the crisis, and various demands made in return for it. Parry produced that £250m figure in the spring as the financial cost of football shutting down then playing without supporters, but no agreement has been forthcoming from the Premier League administration in the negotiations.
Instead, it is reported that the Premier League centrally, led by the chief executive Richard Masters, has most recently offered only £50m, with a further £100m repayable loan. The Premier League is also said to have been asking for commitments in return for this bailout, including the EFL falling in line with its rules for the threshold at which the season could be curtailed if games are suspended again. Some EFL club owners are said to have begun wondering if it is even worth accepting the Premier League’s help, if it is so meagre and with so many strings attached.
Then the plans worked up by Liverpool and Manchester United finally and prematurely emerged, and the terms of engagement, for the 14 and for the Premier League’s chief executive, have been scrambled.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Melissa Reddy in the Independent with a passable summary of the contents of Project Big Picture and the different reactions to it
Don’t let Project Big Picture distract you from the failure of government and the game’s leaders
In nearly three decades, there have been no solutions to redress football's broken system. Project Big Picture is not the answer, but at least it answers key questions
Melissa Reddy
Senior Football Correspondent - 2 hours ago
When the scale of the financial devastation of coronavirus on football became apparent in April as the curtain on the lack of governance in the game was also lifted, experts told The Independent the global pandemic could force the reset the sport so greatly needs.
The problem, as Professor Simon Chadwick, the Global Director of Eurasian Sport put it was: “A reset to what? Who is going to do the resetting?”
While he acknowledged that “football will be sleepwalking into the future” if nothing changed, he warned any path forward would need an alignment of stakeholders as well as support from government, written into policy, to benefit both the strong and the weak.
Chadwick, like several of his peers, did not have any confidence that those with the power to genuinely improve structures for the greater good would act accordingly.
That would then create a landscape where the haves could dictate what happens next to the have-nots.
Dr Rob Wilson, author of Managing Sport Finance, pointed to an “erosion of basic economic principles with many teams going for the winner-takes-all option.
“Everything has been driven by very selfish behaviour and has been very unscrupulous at times, which is a dangerous narrative.
“Football needs a reset, but the realist in me says the teams will only be interested in themselves.”
Dr Daniel Parnell, a Senior Lecturer in Sport Business at the University of Liverpool, predicted “what we’ll see is the difference between those that have and those who do not will grow. Football inequalities will further dictate the future of the game.”
And so, when the details around Project Big Picture emerged, few steeped in the financial knowledge of the game were shocked by an overt power grab meshed with a rescue package for those most in need.
English football has been desperate for change, and in the absence of strong governance from those in charge of the country and those in charge of the game, there was an opportunity for alternate driving forces - Liverpool and Manchester United in this case - to draft a new frontier.
Football finance experts have largely been unified in their reaction to Project Big Picture.
The offer for the Premier League to share a net 25 per cent of its upcoming broadcast deals with the EFL as well as the £250m immediate bailout to help the pyramid survive is viewed as essential and the most pivotal plan in nearly three decades to help repair a broken system.
The funding for stadium infrastructure and grassroots, creation of a fan charter, easing of the packed domestic schedule and the £100m given to the FA are celebrated as ways to help safeguard English football.
The end to the “evil” of parachute payments is applauded given the ruinous level to which it fuels inequality.
Many experts even see the benefit in the reduction of the top-flight to just 18 teams, which they believe would enhance competitive balance.
All the pros, however, are undercut by the mammoth issue of ‘special voting rights.’ The consolidation of power to the Premier League's Big Six along with Everton, Southampton and West Ham is incredibly dangerous and the final squeeze on any miracles - already at impossible odds like Leicester's 5000-1 flipping of the status quo in 2015/16.
There is obviously enormous self-interest colouring Project Big Picture, but then again, there always is in football.
It shouldn’t be overlooked that some of the clubs who oppose the proposal do not feel that Premier League teams should be subsidising their EFL counterparts at all.
There are those that were vehemently opposed to Project Restart on account of being in danger of relegation. Project Big Picture will have grand supporters too, see Tottenham Hotspur who would be able to claim back around £125m on their stadium construction.
Every club - big, middle, falling by the wayside will, as Wilson nailed it, “only be interested in themselves.”
As such, the ills of the manifesto cannot erase some of its merits, which is damning on the game’s leadership figures for the past 25-plus years, who have not offered any solutions to the great imbalances.
It is also a slight on a government that snipes about “back-room deals” but are never forthcoming with any sustainable measures as they wait to finger-point and distract from their endless failings.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's official spokesman said Project Big Picture "undermines trust in football’s governance,” but that is wildly inaccurate, if not unsurprising.
If the game was being regulated properly, there would not have been a gap for Liverpool and United to forcefully press ahead with these designs.
Whatever your feelings on its little and large details, Project Big Picture is correct in its assertion that “a reset of the economics and governance of the English pyramid is long overdue.”
Now if only the powers that be would come to the rescue of the “whole football family” they continuously reference instead of simply condemning suggestions and happily welcoming all these sideshows to their own ineptitude.
It was farcical to hear Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, weaponise a “fan-led review of football governance” - a promise in the manifesto they campaigned on - IF the game could not “get together and work this out.”
A fundamental part of the election manifesto, which hasn’t commissioned a review into the sport or drawn up its terms of reference, is now nothing more than a meaningless threat.
That undermines more than just the trust in football’s governance, but the government itself.
Don’t let Project Big Picture distract you from the failure of government and the game’s leaders
In nearly three decades, there have been no solutions to redress football's broken system. Project Big Picture is not the answer, but at least it answers key questions
Melissa Reddy
Senior Football Correspondent - 2 hours ago
When the scale of the financial devastation of coronavirus on football became apparent in April as the curtain on the lack of governance in the game was also lifted, experts told The Independent the global pandemic could force the reset the sport so greatly needs.
The problem, as Professor Simon Chadwick, the Global Director of Eurasian Sport put it was: “A reset to what? Who is going to do the resetting?”
While he acknowledged that “football will be sleepwalking into the future” if nothing changed, he warned any path forward would need an alignment of stakeholders as well as support from government, written into policy, to benefit both the strong and the weak.
Chadwick, like several of his peers, did not have any confidence that those with the power to genuinely improve structures for the greater good would act accordingly.
That would then create a landscape where the haves could dictate what happens next to the have-nots.
Dr Rob Wilson, author of Managing Sport Finance, pointed to an “erosion of basic economic principles with many teams going for the winner-takes-all option.
“Everything has been driven by very selfish behaviour and has been very unscrupulous at times, which is a dangerous narrative.
“Football needs a reset, but the realist in me says the teams will only be interested in themselves.”
Dr Daniel Parnell, a Senior Lecturer in Sport Business at the University of Liverpool, predicted “what we’ll see is the difference between those that have and those who do not will grow. Football inequalities will further dictate the future of the game.”
And so, when the details around Project Big Picture emerged, few steeped in the financial knowledge of the game were shocked by an overt power grab meshed with a rescue package for those most in need.
English football has been desperate for change, and in the absence of strong governance from those in charge of the country and those in charge of the game, there was an opportunity for alternate driving forces - Liverpool and Manchester United in this case - to draft a new frontier.
Football finance experts have largely been unified in their reaction to Project Big Picture.
The offer for the Premier League to share a net 25 per cent of its upcoming broadcast deals with the EFL as well as the £250m immediate bailout to help the pyramid survive is viewed as essential and the most pivotal plan in nearly three decades to help repair a broken system.
The funding for stadium infrastructure and grassroots, creation of a fan charter, easing of the packed domestic schedule and the £100m given to the FA are celebrated as ways to help safeguard English football.
The end to the “evil” of parachute payments is applauded given the ruinous level to which it fuels inequality.
Many experts even see the benefit in the reduction of the top-flight to just 18 teams, which they believe would enhance competitive balance.
All the pros, however, are undercut by the mammoth issue of ‘special voting rights.’ The consolidation of power to the Premier League's Big Six along with Everton, Southampton and West Ham is incredibly dangerous and the final squeeze on any miracles - already at impossible odds like Leicester's 5000-1 flipping of the status quo in 2015/16.
There is obviously enormous self-interest colouring Project Big Picture, but then again, there always is in football.
It shouldn’t be overlooked that some of the clubs who oppose the proposal do not feel that Premier League teams should be subsidising their EFL counterparts at all.
There are those that were vehemently opposed to Project Restart on account of being in danger of relegation. Project Big Picture will have grand supporters too, see Tottenham Hotspur who would be able to claim back around £125m on their stadium construction.
Every club - big, middle, falling by the wayside will, as Wilson nailed it, “only be interested in themselves.”
As such, the ills of the manifesto cannot erase some of its merits, which is damning on the game’s leadership figures for the past 25-plus years, who have not offered any solutions to the great imbalances.
It is also a slight on a government that snipes about “back-room deals” but are never forthcoming with any sustainable measures as they wait to finger-point and distract from their endless failings.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's official spokesman said Project Big Picture "undermines trust in football’s governance,” but that is wildly inaccurate, if not unsurprising.
If the game was being regulated properly, there would not have been a gap for Liverpool and United to forcefully press ahead with these designs.
Whatever your feelings on its little and large details, Project Big Picture is correct in its assertion that “a reset of the economics and governance of the English pyramid is long overdue.”
Now if only the powers that be would come to the rescue of the “whole football family” they continuously reference instead of simply condemning suggestions and happily welcoming all these sideshows to their own ineptitude.
It was farcical to hear Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, weaponise a “fan-led review of football governance” - a promise in the manifesto they campaigned on - IF the game could not “get together and work this out.”
A fundamental part of the election manifesto, which hasn’t commissioned a review into the sport or drawn up its terms of reference, is now nothing more than a meaningless threat.
That undermines more than just the trust in football’s governance, but the government itself.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
the Times with news that may have contributed to Dave Baldwin's resignation decision and again shows that the EFL executive keep making decisions without consulting members. This kind of Private Equity option was something I suggested that the EFL could look at some time ago, but as we are also seeing in Serie A clubs do not want to give up any ownership
EFL rejected £375m offer from American firm
Martyn Ziegler - Tuesday October 13 2020, 12.01am, The Times
The EFL rejected a £375 million offer from an American investment firm for a 20 per cent stake in the league that would have helped to solve the clubs’ cash crisis, it can be revealed.
TPG Capital offered the cash as part of an arrangement that was similar to CVC Capital Partners’ deal with Premiership Rugby when it took a 27 per cent stake. It is understood that the EFL turned down the offer on Friday, two days before Rick Parry, its chairman, revealed details of the plan he is involved in, alongside the respective American owners of Liverpool and Manchester United, to revolutionise English football with Project Big Picture.
As part of the deal, TPG — previously known as Texas Pacific Group — would have been able to put in place a management team to handle the EFL’s commercial and broadcasting rights, believing it would have a much better ability to maximise its potential.
It is thought that the offer was not put to the 72 EFL clubs but discussed by the league’s commercial chiefs before being rejected. The EFL declined to comment.
The EFL, which is seeking a £250 million bailout because of the Covid-19 crisis, suffered another significant blow when David Baldwin, the league’s chief executive, quit after less than six months in the position. Baldwin, the 49-year-old former Burnley chief executive, announced his decision to the EFL board yesterday.
The EFL said the decision was not related to Project Big Picture, but it is understood it is partly linked to frustrations around dealing with the Covid-19 crisis as well as personal family issues. He is expected to work out a six-month notice period.
Baldwin, who had been involved in making the case to the government for the safe return of fans, as well as negotiating for a financial support package with the Premier League, saw through a change to the EFL’s rules so that League One and League Two clubs are subject to a salary cap.
In a statement he said: “Clearly, accepting this position pre-Covid-19 means the situation is now very different to the one I envisaged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@AndyhHolt had quite an emotive response to this article
https://twitter.com/AndyhHolt/status/13 ... 3679423488
EFL rejected £375m offer from American firm
Martyn Ziegler - Tuesday October 13 2020, 12.01am, The Times
The EFL rejected a £375 million offer from an American investment firm for a 20 per cent stake in the league that would have helped to solve the clubs’ cash crisis, it can be revealed.
TPG Capital offered the cash as part of an arrangement that was similar to CVC Capital Partners’ deal with Premiership Rugby when it took a 27 per cent stake. It is understood that the EFL turned down the offer on Friday, two days before Rick Parry, its chairman, revealed details of the plan he is involved in, alongside the respective American owners of Liverpool and Manchester United, to revolutionise English football with Project Big Picture.
As part of the deal, TPG — previously known as Texas Pacific Group — would have been able to put in place a management team to handle the EFL’s commercial and broadcasting rights, believing it would have a much better ability to maximise its potential.
It is thought that the offer was not put to the 72 EFL clubs but discussed by the league’s commercial chiefs before being rejected. The EFL declined to comment.
The EFL, which is seeking a £250 million bailout because of the Covid-19 crisis, suffered another significant blow when David Baldwin, the league’s chief executive, quit after less than six months in the position. Baldwin, the 49-year-old former Burnley chief executive, announced his decision to the EFL board yesterday.
The EFL said the decision was not related to Project Big Picture, but it is understood it is partly linked to frustrations around dealing with the Covid-19 crisis as well as personal family issues. He is expected to work out a six-month notice period.
Baldwin, who had been involved in making the case to the government for the safe return of fans, as well as negotiating for a financial support package with the Premier League, saw through a change to the EFL’s rules so that League One and League Two clubs are subject to a salary cap.
In a statement he said: “Clearly, accepting this position pre-Covid-19 means the situation is now very different to the one I envisaged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@AndyhHolt had quite an emotive response to this article
https://twitter.com/AndyhHolt/status/13 ... 3679423488
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
An interesting piece from PlaytheGame.org on match fixing and how poor governance financial instability within countries paly a significant role in it's occurrence
Analysis - Time to look beyond organised crime to stop match-fixing
Many clubs in smaller European football leagues lack income and that leaves them vulnerable to match-fixing. Photo: Mark Botham/Flickr
12.10.2020 - Analysis by Steve Menary
Organised crime is not the only driver behind match-fixing. Financial instability and unequal distribution of revenue in European football are other factors, explains Steve Menary and calls on sport authorities to help find solutions.
An obvious consequence of the lockdown should have been that less sport equals less match-fixing. Yet, this year looks likely to set a record for alerts over suspicious matches, particularly in European football.
At the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), 32 alerts were escalated on European matches in 2019. By the third quarter of 2020, 25 match alerts have already been issued. As the sport emerged from corona lockdown, plenty of others have attracted suspicion from Armenia to Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Russia, the Ukraine and Turkey.
This summer, Europol warned of increased involvement from organised crime in match-fixing, but this increasingly accepted narrative is a simplistic explanation that absolves sport itself for any responsibility.
Khalid Ali, IBIA’s chief executive officer, says:
“Organised criminal activity is clearly involved in betting related match-fixing and is a major threat, but it’s not the only threat. We’ve seen from a range of sports that match-fixing can be triggered by players in the lower levels betting on their own matches to subsidise the lack of income from their sporting activities.”
Sporting reasons is a key driver for match-fixing
The notion of the mob fixing games gains more traction in the media than a club owner in some impoverished eastern European country trading points for a better league position. However, sporting reasons have long been a key driver for manipulating matches and this has not changed.
In 2011, a report called ‘The Prevalence of Corruption’ by the European Sports Security Association (now the International Betting Integrity Association) and Coventry University found that 42% of match-fixing cases identified in sport were for sporting reasons. And 83% of overall cases were in Europe, mainly within football.
The point is further underlined in the ‘Typology Framework of sports manipulations’ that was published this summer by the Council of Europe Network of National Platforms – also known as the Copenhagen Group. The first two categories refer directly to types of match-fixing undertaken for sporting reasons:
- Exploitation of governance – for example, the owners of two sports clubs agree the outcome of a sports competition and instruct their teams to ensure that outcome is achieved.
- Exploitation of power/influence – for example, a sponsor of a club promises a new sponsorship contract to a player of a rival club if they ‘help’ their team to lose their next game.
Organised crime certainly plays an increasing role in match-fixing and should never be discounted but the underlying reasons for increasing manipulation, particularly at a lower level in European football, are far more complex.
Andy Harvey, a lecturer in sports science and exercise at Swansea University, who worked for players union FIFPro on its research on match-fixing, says:
“There are two narratives on match-fixing. The first was that the players were at fault. FIFPro did a lot of work around this and yes, players are involved but there are a lot of other actors. It’s coaches, directors, agents and a host of others involving outside companies.”
“Then there are the other issues like gambling and non-gambling related match-fixing. This all connects to good governance.”
Lower leagues in Europe lack income
Attempts to improve governance in football are increasingly undermined by financial instability and the unequal distribution of revenue in European football.
Aggregate revenue at UEFA from the Champions League, Europa League and Super Cup in 2019/20 is expected to be around €3.25 billions. Of this total, €10 millions were set aside to subsidise solidarity payments to clubs eliminated in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and Europa Leagues.
“We have always argued for fairer distribution of revenue,” says Tony Higgins from international footballer’s union, FIFPro.
“The pandemic has exposed the lack of resources amongst the smaller federations and leagues.”
Simply surviving is a challenge in many of UEFA’s smaller members. In Lithuania for example, 20 clubs vanished in the decade up to June 2015 and this is not a problem restricted to the Baltic. In Eastern Europe, some clubs survive in name, going bust then being resurrected in a new form under a version of the old name.
Starting up a club is not expensive. Grounds are often rented and some clubs play in daylight to avoid paying for floodlights. The main expense is wages for players. The problem is income.
If domestic fans prefer to watch the English Premier League or Spain’s La Liga on television to watching their own domestic football, income from ticket sales, TV rights and sponsorship becomes hard to find.
UEFA revenue is very important in many leagues
UEFA’s latest club licensing benchmarking report, which covers the 2018 financial year, illustrates the growing gap between rich and poor.
In 2018, net profits rose to record levels at clubs in the leading 20 leagues. In the remaining 35 UEFA members, only eight competitions made an aggregate profit. Four of those countries – Croatia, Iceland, Moldova and Ukraine – were reliant on money from transfers to stay profitable. With the exception of Iceland, match-fixing has been a constant issue in the remaining trio.
TV income is virtually negligible for the 15 smallest leagues in UEFA, and in an era of spiralling wage inflation losses at clubs in smaller leagues are rising. Amongst the smaller leagues where profitability remains elusive, the number of countries reporting net loss margins of more than 20% has increased from 11 to 13.
In the Czech Republic, Georgia, Gibraltar, Israel, Kosovo, Latvia and North Macedonia, the margin of losses was more than 30%. And nearly 400 clubs outside the top 20 league had a loss margin of 11% - and this was before the virus.
In its benchmarking report, UEFA notes:
“Revenue from UEFA club competitions is very important for clubs in most middle and lower-income leagues. In 16 of the bottom 35 countries, UEFA payments accounted for a third or more of all revenue.”
The importance of UEFA money was illustrated this summer, when an attempt to manipulate the Andorran Cup final was reportedly based on a wish to gain access to European competition.
Ownership of football clubs is another issue
For clubs not playing in Europe, benefactors are increasingly essential, particularly in Eastern Europe, where many federations have been trying to ease clubs out of public ownership. This was a holdover from Soviet times, when state control was omnipotent. The Eastern bloc has gone but many councils or state bodies still find themselves subsidising professional football cubs in partnership with private owners, whose suitability rarely comes under the microscope.
The UK’s Fit and Proper Persons Test for owners of football clubs has been criticised – sometimes rightly – but in many European countries, no such test exists. And in most of these countries, match-fixing is a problem.
“Ultimately, it’s about how clubs are owned and run and pretty much anyone can become an owner of a football club,” says Andy Harvey.
With the financial impact of the lockdown reverberating throughout European football, income from sponsorship is likely to further diminish. Fixing a game to subsidise the running of a club is an increasing temptation.
In the Copenhagen Group’s typology, ‘direct interference in the natural course of a sporting event or competition instigated by exploitation of governance’ is the primary type of manipulation.
Lack of governance for friendly matches
This year has seen a surge in concern over friendly matches in European football, mainly played by lower league clubs, with more than 80 games attracting suspicion so far in 2020. This is because virtually no governance exists for friendlies.
These games invariably find their way onto the Asian markets, where demand for betting on European football – even clubs few in Europe might have heard of – is burgeoning, in part because many bettors in Asia do not want to place wages on their own often corrupt leagues.
On the amorphous Asian markets, a fix aimed at generating €30,000 to €40,000 for a club owner that is either unscrupulous or desperate barely registers. These clubs are not all in the grip of organised crime. Some owners are criminals, some are opportunists and some are morally flexible owners trying to keep their club afloat.
The financial pressures faced by clubs outside the elite are growing. Even more so in the second and third tier leagues where clubs are stuck in a kind of limbo, chasing a place amongst their national elite but often unable to afford wages as sponsorship, transfer fees and TV rights all flow remorselessly towards the bigger leagues and clubs.
Time for a new narrative on match-fixing
How match-fixing is framed needs to change argues Marcelo Moriconi, researcher and guest assistant professor at Portugal’s Centro de Estudos Internacionais. He explains:
“The official preventative narrative was used in a successful way to create a narrative that put the responsibility outside the sports world. So, you transform something that is historically part of football like match-fixing and you transform yourself into an integrity warrior.”
Match-fixing has always existed in football and pinning all the blame on organised crime lets sports authorities off the hook when it comes to finding a solution. Wider structural changes in how football is funded, particularly outside elite leagues, are needed to stem the tide of fixing that is undermining the credibility of European football on the increasingly forgotten fringes.
Betting companies and data companies could be openly discouraged from offering many of these games but the integrity of these leagues can – and should have – been bolstered by UEFA. FIFPro’s Tony Higgins says:
“With the pandemic and the lack of resources, you don’t expect there to be much progress but this should have been done before.”
Last year, UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin conceded that sport could not deal with match-fixing alone and commissioned a feasibility study into the idea of creating a pan-continental integrity body.
Work is due for completion by the end of this year. With football across Europe creaking under the weight of escalating financial pressure and the temptation to fix games only growing, there has never been a more urgent time to address the problems of governance and inequality in European football that are at the root of the fixing.
Analysis - Time to look beyond organised crime to stop match-fixing
Many clubs in smaller European football leagues lack income and that leaves them vulnerable to match-fixing. Photo: Mark Botham/Flickr
12.10.2020 - Analysis by Steve Menary
Organised crime is not the only driver behind match-fixing. Financial instability and unequal distribution of revenue in European football are other factors, explains Steve Menary and calls on sport authorities to help find solutions.
An obvious consequence of the lockdown should have been that less sport equals less match-fixing. Yet, this year looks likely to set a record for alerts over suspicious matches, particularly in European football.
At the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), 32 alerts were escalated on European matches in 2019. By the third quarter of 2020, 25 match alerts have already been issued. As the sport emerged from corona lockdown, plenty of others have attracted suspicion from Armenia to Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Russia, the Ukraine and Turkey.
This summer, Europol warned of increased involvement from organised crime in match-fixing, but this increasingly accepted narrative is a simplistic explanation that absolves sport itself for any responsibility.
Khalid Ali, IBIA’s chief executive officer, says:
“Organised criminal activity is clearly involved in betting related match-fixing and is a major threat, but it’s not the only threat. We’ve seen from a range of sports that match-fixing can be triggered by players in the lower levels betting on their own matches to subsidise the lack of income from their sporting activities.”
Sporting reasons is a key driver for match-fixing
The notion of the mob fixing games gains more traction in the media than a club owner in some impoverished eastern European country trading points for a better league position. However, sporting reasons have long been a key driver for manipulating matches and this has not changed.
In 2011, a report called ‘The Prevalence of Corruption’ by the European Sports Security Association (now the International Betting Integrity Association) and Coventry University found that 42% of match-fixing cases identified in sport were for sporting reasons. And 83% of overall cases were in Europe, mainly within football.
The point is further underlined in the ‘Typology Framework of sports manipulations’ that was published this summer by the Council of Europe Network of National Platforms – also known as the Copenhagen Group. The first two categories refer directly to types of match-fixing undertaken for sporting reasons:
- Exploitation of governance – for example, the owners of two sports clubs agree the outcome of a sports competition and instruct their teams to ensure that outcome is achieved.
- Exploitation of power/influence – for example, a sponsor of a club promises a new sponsorship contract to a player of a rival club if they ‘help’ their team to lose their next game.
Organised crime certainly plays an increasing role in match-fixing and should never be discounted but the underlying reasons for increasing manipulation, particularly at a lower level in European football, are far more complex.
Andy Harvey, a lecturer in sports science and exercise at Swansea University, who worked for players union FIFPro on its research on match-fixing, says:
“There are two narratives on match-fixing. The first was that the players were at fault. FIFPro did a lot of work around this and yes, players are involved but there are a lot of other actors. It’s coaches, directors, agents and a host of others involving outside companies.”
“Then there are the other issues like gambling and non-gambling related match-fixing. This all connects to good governance.”
Lower leagues in Europe lack income
Attempts to improve governance in football are increasingly undermined by financial instability and the unequal distribution of revenue in European football.
Aggregate revenue at UEFA from the Champions League, Europa League and Super Cup in 2019/20 is expected to be around €3.25 billions. Of this total, €10 millions were set aside to subsidise solidarity payments to clubs eliminated in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and Europa Leagues.
“We have always argued for fairer distribution of revenue,” says Tony Higgins from international footballer’s union, FIFPro.
“The pandemic has exposed the lack of resources amongst the smaller federations and leagues.”
Simply surviving is a challenge in many of UEFA’s smaller members. In Lithuania for example, 20 clubs vanished in the decade up to June 2015 and this is not a problem restricted to the Baltic. In Eastern Europe, some clubs survive in name, going bust then being resurrected in a new form under a version of the old name.
Starting up a club is not expensive. Grounds are often rented and some clubs play in daylight to avoid paying for floodlights. The main expense is wages for players. The problem is income.
If domestic fans prefer to watch the English Premier League or Spain’s La Liga on television to watching their own domestic football, income from ticket sales, TV rights and sponsorship becomes hard to find.
UEFA revenue is very important in many leagues
UEFA’s latest club licensing benchmarking report, which covers the 2018 financial year, illustrates the growing gap between rich and poor.
In 2018, net profits rose to record levels at clubs in the leading 20 leagues. In the remaining 35 UEFA members, only eight competitions made an aggregate profit. Four of those countries – Croatia, Iceland, Moldova and Ukraine – were reliant on money from transfers to stay profitable. With the exception of Iceland, match-fixing has been a constant issue in the remaining trio.
TV income is virtually negligible for the 15 smallest leagues in UEFA, and in an era of spiralling wage inflation losses at clubs in smaller leagues are rising. Amongst the smaller leagues where profitability remains elusive, the number of countries reporting net loss margins of more than 20% has increased from 11 to 13.
In the Czech Republic, Georgia, Gibraltar, Israel, Kosovo, Latvia and North Macedonia, the margin of losses was more than 30%. And nearly 400 clubs outside the top 20 league had a loss margin of 11% - and this was before the virus.
In its benchmarking report, UEFA notes:
“Revenue from UEFA club competitions is very important for clubs in most middle and lower-income leagues. In 16 of the bottom 35 countries, UEFA payments accounted for a third or more of all revenue.”
The importance of UEFA money was illustrated this summer, when an attempt to manipulate the Andorran Cup final was reportedly based on a wish to gain access to European competition.
Ownership of football clubs is another issue
For clubs not playing in Europe, benefactors are increasingly essential, particularly in Eastern Europe, where many federations have been trying to ease clubs out of public ownership. This was a holdover from Soviet times, when state control was omnipotent. The Eastern bloc has gone but many councils or state bodies still find themselves subsidising professional football cubs in partnership with private owners, whose suitability rarely comes under the microscope.
The UK’s Fit and Proper Persons Test for owners of football clubs has been criticised – sometimes rightly – but in many European countries, no such test exists. And in most of these countries, match-fixing is a problem.
“Ultimately, it’s about how clubs are owned and run and pretty much anyone can become an owner of a football club,” says Andy Harvey.
With the financial impact of the lockdown reverberating throughout European football, income from sponsorship is likely to further diminish. Fixing a game to subsidise the running of a club is an increasing temptation.
In the Copenhagen Group’s typology, ‘direct interference in the natural course of a sporting event or competition instigated by exploitation of governance’ is the primary type of manipulation.
Lack of governance for friendly matches
This year has seen a surge in concern over friendly matches in European football, mainly played by lower league clubs, with more than 80 games attracting suspicion so far in 2020. This is because virtually no governance exists for friendlies.
These games invariably find their way onto the Asian markets, where demand for betting on European football – even clubs few in Europe might have heard of – is burgeoning, in part because many bettors in Asia do not want to place wages on their own often corrupt leagues.
On the amorphous Asian markets, a fix aimed at generating €30,000 to €40,000 for a club owner that is either unscrupulous or desperate barely registers. These clubs are not all in the grip of organised crime. Some owners are criminals, some are opportunists and some are morally flexible owners trying to keep their club afloat.
The financial pressures faced by clubs outside the elite are growing. Even more so in the second and third tier leagues where clubs are stuck in a kind of limbo, chasing a place amongst their national elite but often unable to afford wages as sponsorship, transfer fees and TV rights all flow remorselessly towards the bigger leagues and clubs.
Time for a new narrative on match-fixing
How match-fixing is framed needs to change argues Marcelo Moriconi, researcher and guest assistant professor at Portugal’s Centro de Estudos Internacionais. He explains:
“The official preventative narrative was used in a successful way to create a narrative that put the responsibility outside the sports world. So, you transform something that is historically part of football like match-fixing and you transform yourself into an integrity warrior.”
Match-fixing has always existed in football and pinning all the blame on organised crime lets sports authorities off the hook when it comes to finding a solution. Wider structural changes in how football is funded, particularly outside elite leagues, are needed to stem the tide of fixing that is undermining the credibility of European football on the increasingly forgotten fringes.
Betting companies and data companies could be openly discouraged from offering many of these games but the integrity of these leagues can – and should have – been bolstered by UEFA. FIFPro’s Tony Higgins says:
“With the pandemic and the lack of resources, you don’t expect there to be much progress but this should have been done before.”
Last year, UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin conceded that sport could not deal with match-fixing alone and commissioned a feasibility study into the idea of creating a pan-continental integrity body.
Work is due for completion by the end of this year. With football across Europe creaking under the weight of escalating financial pressure and the temptation to fix games only growing, there has never been a more urgent time to address the problems of governance and inequality in European football that are at the root of the fixing.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Mark Palios, Chairman/owner of Tranmere, takes a very different view to that of Andy Pilley re Project Big Picture - would you be shocked if I said it was from the Telegraph
Exclusive: Former FA chief executive Mark Palios fears Project Big Picture would destroy football pyramid forever
MATT LAW OCTOBER 13, 2020
Former FA chief executive Mark Palios has warned that Project Big Picture would lead to the permanent dismantling of the football pyramid in this country and has questioned the role of EFL chairman Rick Parry in the proposal.
Parry will talk to clubs from each of the EFL divisions on Tuesday, but cannot count on widespread support of his plan despite the promise of a £250million bail out.
Palios, who owns League Two club Tranmere Rovers, is convinced that the proposal, led by Liverpool and Manchester United, and supported by Parry, would eventually result in the formation of a Premier League Two, from which there would be no relegation and promotion.
And Palios has called on his EFL colleagues to see past the short-term gains and take a moral stance on protecting the pyramid for years to come.
“This works out, if you look forwards, five years, 10 years, 20 years, who knows, but you will have a Premier League Two and you increase the gap between League One and the Championship,” said Palios.
“What you actually want to do is to smooth the gaps across the pyramid, rather than taking a route that will increase the gap sometime in the future and will mean the end of the pyramid as we know it with relegation and promotion right the way through. There would be no relegation and promotion from Premier League Two, and what’s to stop it if the ‘Big Six’ take control?
“People seem to think a lot of lower league clubs would take the money that’s on offer in this proposal, but you have to come back to the central premise that this plan is all about short-term gains for longer term damage.
“It’s difficult for people to have come in from abroad to this country and see what they see in front of them. But they need to reflect on the fact they stand on the shoulders of giants and what we have in this country is that people were relatively far sighted enough 150 years ago, whenever, and today people need to think about what the pyramid will look like in 20 years, 40 years’ time and I think there is a moral need to do that.
“Project Big Picture would crystallise the gap in the pyramid forever, so clubs like ourselves would not be capable of dreaming about becoming a Championship club or even get up to the Premier League. So you take away ambition and ambition is the lifeblood, the attractive and the cohesive thing that keeps the pyramid together. Football and sport is all about ambition and if you take away the ambition, that’s a major issue.”
Other than being worried about the long-term impact of Project Big Picture, Palios holds deep concerns over how it has come about and Parry’s role within it.
“The situation is that this has not been debated between the stakeholders in any way, shape or form,” said Palios.
“This has got to get passed by the Premier League first, so what’s been done on that? And, by the sound of it, not a lot has been done on it. It sounds like it may fall at the first hurdle. The second thing, of course, is the FA may step in with their golden veto. I don't know what the FA thinks, but I would have thought they would be keen to look at it from the angle I do. And that is that this is a short-term measure for members of the EFL, but it looks like expediency, an opportunistic land grab by the ‘Big Six’.
“There are sweeteners in there, but they are designed to obfuscate I think what is the main issue and that is the long-term damage it does to the pyramid by giving the power to the ‘Big Six’. A long time ago, I used the phrase that you may as well put the keys to football in a jiffy bag and send them up the M6.
“I think this is a pretty clumsy attempt and I think the process has been woeful. I don’t think the EFL chairman should, without consulting the EFL, have gone forwards. I think at a time when we need to be cooperating with the Premier League, we’ve been put in a position where they might actually, timing-wise, take time out to sort themselves out on this, rather than focus on the key thing which is getting money across to clubs for wages in October. What I’d also be interested to find out is whatever else the EFL have turned away. We’ll ask them today.”
In terms of how he believes the EFL coronavirus cash crisis should be solved, Palios insists the government must step in and take control of the situation.
Palios said: “This is something that needs to be dealt with in a much more mature environment than in a crisis that’s been self-induced by football’s patent and obvious inability to govern itself or to fix itself and address the pandemic in a sensible way. To which we now have a cash crisis that’s become a critical cash crisis.
“They’ve had six months to fix this and they haven’t. I have always argued that if there is help from the government it should come with conditionality, but now what’s happened is because the six months have been wasted, we’ve seen nothing.
“As a crisis management exercise it’s been pretty poor and I think the time has come for the government to accept that football can’t manage itself, and it isn’t awash with cash as it thinks.
“They should recognise that clubs such as ourselves, together with the bigger clubs, have a massive impact on our communities and as a consequence they should look at it in the same way as the theatre, and understand the incredibly large impact the pyramid has around the country - it means a lot to millions of people.”
Exclusive: Former FA chief executive Mark Palios fears Project Big Picture would destroy football pyramid forever
MATT LAW OCTOBER 13, 2020
Former FA chief executive Mark Palios has warned that Project Big Picture would lead to the permanent dismantling of the football pyramid in this country and has questioned the role of EFL chairman Rick Parry in the proposal.
Parry will talk to clubs from each of the EFL divisions on Tuesday, but cannot count on widespread support of his plan despite the promise of a £250million bail out.
Palios, who owns League Two club Tranmere Rovers, is convinced that the proposal, led by Liverpool and Manchester United, and supported by Parry, would eventually result in the formation of a Premier League Two, from which there would be no relegation and promotion.
And Palios has called on his EFL colleagues to see past the short-term gains and take a moral stance on protecting the pyramid for years to come.
“This works out, if you look forwards, five years, 10 years, 20 years, who knows, but you will have a Premier League Two and you increase the gap between League One and the Championship,” said Palios.
“What you actually want to do is to smooth the gaps across the pyramid, rather than taking a route that will increase the gap sometime in the future and will mean the end of the pyramid as we know it with relegation and promotion right the way through. There would be no relegation and promotion from Premier League Two, and what’s to stop it if the ‘Big Six’ take control?
“People seem to think a lot of lower league clubs would take the money that’s on offer in this proposal, but you have to come back to the central premise that this plan is all about short-term gains for longer term damage.
“It’s difficult for people to have come in from abroad to this country and see what they see in front of them. But they need to reflect on the fact they stand on the shoulders of giants and what we have in this country is that people were relatively far sighted enough 150 years ago, whenever, and today people need to think about what the pyramid will look like in 20 years, 40 years’ time and I think there is a moral need to do that.
“Project Big Picture would crystallise the gap in the pyramid forever, so clubs like ourselves would not be capable of dreaming about becoming a Championship club or even get up to the Premier League. So you take away ambition and ambition is the lifeblood, the attractive and the cohesive thing that keeps the pyramid together. Football and sport is all about ambition and if you take away the ambition, that’s a major issue.”
Other than being worried about the long-term impact of Project Big Picture, Palios holds deep concerns over how it has come about and Parry’s role within it.
“The situation is that this has not been debated between the stakeholders in any way, shape or form,” said Palios.
“This has got to get passed by the Premier League first, so what’s been done on that? And, by the sound of it, not a lot has been done on it. It sounds like it may fall at the first hurdle. The second thing, of course, is the FA may step in with their golden veto. I don't know what the FA thinks, but I would have thought they would be keen to look at it from the angle I do. And that is that this is a short-term measure for members of the EFL, but it looks like expediency, an opportunistic land grab by the ‘Big Six’.
“There are sweeteners in there, but they are designed to obfuscate I think what is the main issue and that is the long-term damage it does to the pyramid by giving the power to the ‘Big Six’. A long time ago, I used the phrase that you may as well put the keys to football in a jiffy bag and send them up the M6.
“I think this is a pretty clumsy attempt and I think the process has been woeful. I don’t think the EFL chairman should, without consulting the EFL, have gone forwards. I think at a time when we need to be cooperating with the Premier League, we’ve been put in a position where they might actually, timing-wise, take time out to sort themselves out on this, rather than focus on the key thing which is getting money across to clubs for wages in October. What I’d also be interested to find out is whatever else the EFL have turned away. We’ll ask them today.”
In terms of how he believes the EFL coronavirus cash crisis should be solved, Palios insists the government must step in and take control of the situation.
Palios said: “This is something that needs to be dealt with in a much more mature environment than in a crisis that’s been self-induced by football’s patent and obvious inability to govern itself or to fix itself and address the pandemic in a sensible way. To which we now have a cash crisis that’s become a critical cash crisis.
“They’ve had six months to fix this and they haven’t. I have always argued that if there is help from the government it should come with conditionality, but now what’s happened is because the six months have been wasted, we’ve seen nothing.
“As a crisis management exercise it’s been pretty poor and I think the time has come for the government to accept that football can’t manage itself, and it isn’t awash with cash as it thinks.
“They should recognise that clubs such as ourselves, together with the bigger clubs, have a massive impact on our communities and as a consequence they should look at it in the same way as the theatre, and understand the incredibly large impact the pyramid has around the country - it means a lot to millions of people.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I feel this is a very risky move by the French Ligue over the Mediapro instalment payment failure, there is no guarantee that Mediapro won't walk away and any backfill deal will come at a substantially reduced price - from SportsProMedia.com
Report: LFP seeks bank loan to cover Mediapro’s missed TV rights payment
French soccer body tries to ensure Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs receive broadcast money on time.
Posted: October 13 2020By: Sam Carp
- Deadline for clubs to receive next instalment of TV money is 17th October
- LFP rejected Mediapro request to delay €172m rights fee payment due on 6th October
- French soccer body already took out €224.5m government loan in May
French soccer’s Professional Football League (LFP) has requested a bank loan to cover the delay to its rights fee payment from domestic broadcast partner Mediapro, according to L’Equipe.
Last week, the LFP confirmed in a statement that it had rejected the Spanish agency’s request for more time to make its second payment of €172 million (US$201 million), which was due on 6th October.
It came after Mediapro chief executive Jaume Roures told L’Equipe that the company was looking to renegotiate its broadcast partnership with the LFP, claiming that the value of the deal is being adversely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.
Now, L’Equipe reports that the LFP is looking to put in place a bank loan so that clubs in the top-flight Ligue 1 and second-tier Ligue 2 receive their broadcast payments by 17th October.
It is the second time the LFP has been forced to seek financial support since the onset of Covid-19, after the organising body took out a state-guaranteed loan of €224.5 million (US$262.7 million) in May following the decision to end the 2019/20 Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 seasons early.
Mediapro’s stance is another blow to clubs in France’s top two divisions, who are also set to miss out on a reported €192 million (US$224 million) in ticketing and hospitality revenue due to restrictions on fans attending games.
The LFP is just months into its four-season partnership with Mediapro, which is paying €780 million (US$913 million) a year for Ligue 1 rights and an annual €34 million (US$39 million) to show Ligue 2.
Mediapro did at least pay its first instalment on time before requesting a delay on the second, and is now looking to renegotiate the terms of the deal for this season.
“We want to renegotiate the contract for this season,” Roures confirmed to L’Equipe. “It has been very affected by Covid-19, everyone knows because everyone is suffering through it. We are not questioning the project as it is. But the bars and restaurants are closed, advertising is down - these are things that everyone knows."
He added: “The contract was established in conditions that are completely different to the current situation. That is obvious. We need to speak about it. Aside from that, we will see how it ends up. We are not putting into question the contract, but we are putting into question the current situation.”
Report: LFP seeks bank loan to cover Mediapro’s missed TV rights payment
French soccer body tries to ensure Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs receive broadcast money on time.
Posted: October 13 2020By: Sam Carp
- Deadline for clubs to receive next instalment of TV money is 17th October
- LFP rejected Mediapro request to delay €172m rights fee payment due on 6th October
- French soccer body already took out €224.5m government loan in May
French soccer’s Professional Football League (LFP) has requested a bank loan to cover the delay to its rights fee payment from domestic broadcast partner Mediapro, according to L’Equipe.
Last week, the LFP confirmed in a statement that it had rejected the Spanish agency’s request for more time to make its second payment of €172 million (US$201 million), which was due on 6th October.
It came after Mediapro chief executive Jaume Roures told L’Equipe that the company was looking to renegotiate its broadcast partnership with the LFP, claiming that the value of the deal is being adversely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.
Now, L’Equipe reports that the LFP is looking to put in place a bank loan so that clubs in the top-flight Ligue 1 and second-tier Ligue 2 receive their broadcast payments by 17th October.
It is the second time the LFP has been forced to seek financial support since the onset of Covid-19, after the organising body took out a state-guaranteed loan of €224.5 million (US$262.7 million) in May following the decision to end the 2019/20 Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 seasons early.
Mediapro’s stance is another blow to clubs in France’s top two divisions, who are also set to miss out on a reported €192 million (US$224 million) in ticketing and hospitality revenue due to restrictions on fans attending games.
The LFP is just months into its four-season partnership with Mediapro, which is paying €780 million (US$913 million) a year for Ligue 1 rights and an annual €34 million (US$39 million) to show Ligue 2.
Mediapro did at least pay its first instalment on time before requesting a delay on the second, and is now looking to renegotiate the terms of the deal for this season.
“We want to renegotiate the contract for this season,” Roures confirmed to L’Equipe. “It has been very affected by Covid-19, everyone knows because everyone is suffering through it. We are not questioning the project as it is. But the bars and restaurants are closed, advertising is down - these are things that everyone knows."
He added: “The contract was established in conditions that are completely different to the current situation. That is obvious. We need to speak about it. Aside from that, we will see how it ends up. We are not putting into question the contract, but we are putting into question the current situation.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
After much umming and arrring Serie A enters exclusive talks with the CVC led consortium - the decision was 15 - 5 in favour of the move
https://twitter.com/jonrest/status/1316020778744254465
https://twitter.com/jonrest/status/1316020778744254465
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
as Chairmen across the EFL today appeared to be mostly in favour of Project Big Picture
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ig-picture
it seemed to be because they wanted more money and for nothing - rather than grants where it was most need (Leagues 1 and 2) and offers of means test loans in the Championship - you know that place where clubs sell themselves property and whatever price they choose. amongst other ludicrous ploys to get round Profit ans Sustainability rules
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -head.html
In particular I am struggling to get my head around this one - Steve Gibson, who has blown hundreds of millions on his club to cover losses over the last 30+ years now thinks it is worth giving the big six whatever they want for false promises - These guys have actually been given copies of the document but don't seem to understand that it just doesn't add-up
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... ivion.html
and yet for the many that do not operate with any sense, they expect to be just to be given money so that they can complain about being backed into a corner later - It is they themselves who backed them into the corner as @TariqPanja says
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 9407412224
though I do believe it is possible to have a 100+ professional clubs
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ig-picture
it seemed to be because they wanted more money and for nothing - rather than grants where it was most need (Leagues 1 and 2) and offers of means test loans in the Championship - you know that place where clubs sell themselves property and whatever price they choose. amongst other ludicrous ploys to get round Profit ans Sustainability rules
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -head.html
In particular I am struggling to get my head around this one - Steve Gibson, who has blown hundreds of millions on his club to cover losses over the last 30+ years now thinks it is worth giving the big six whatever they want for false promises - These guys have actually been given copies of the document but don't seem to understand that it just doesn't add-up
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... ivion.html
and yet for the many that do not operate with any sense, they expect to be just to be given money so that they can complain about being backed into a corner later - It is they themselves who backed them into the corner as @TariqPanja says
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 9407412224
though I do believe it is possible to have a 100+ professional clubs
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
a bit more detail on that CVC/Advent deal with Serie A from the Financial TimesChester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:26 pmAfter much umming and arrring Serie A enters exclusive talks with the CVC led consortium - the decision was 15 - 5 in favour of the move
https://twitter.com/jonrest/status/1316020778744254465
CVC and Advent win backing from Italian clubs in battle for Serie A
Private equity groups secure votes for €1.6bn deal over football league’s broadcasting rights
Kaye Wiggins and Silvia Sciorilli Borrelli in London YESTERDAY
CVC Capital Partners and Advent International have won the backing of the majority of Italy’s Serie A clubs in a vote that paves the way for a €1.6bn deal that would bring outside investors into one of football’s biggest leagues.
The two private equity groups, which teamed up in August after submitting rival bids for a stake in the league, are working with the Italian investment fund Fondo FSI to take a 10 per cent stake in a new company managing Serie A’s broadcasting rights.
Fifteen clubs voted in favour of the offer, while five — Napoli, Lazio, Atalanta, Verona and Udinese — abstained from the vote. None of the clubs supported the competing offer by Bain, while a last-minute bid from US investment firm Fortress was not accepted because it was formalised past the deadline for offers to be submitted, two people said.
CVC and Advent will now enter four weeks of exclusive negotiations with the Lega Calcio Serie A, the body that runs Italy’s top division, in order to clear domestic legal and fiscal hurdles and define the details of the distribution and commercialisation contracts, according to two people involved in the talks.
The duo’s offer marks an increase from their previous €1.3bn proposal, which valued the league at €13bn.
They would hold a stake in a company managing Serie A’s broadcasting rights, international trademark and commercial development rather than owning the league itself.
CVC has a history of investing in sport, having previously owned stakes in Formula One and England’s Premiership Rugby. However, it and Advent have not owned a business together since they sold French building materials group Materis, alongside Carlyle, in 2003.
The private equity groups declined to comment.
The deal faces opposition from a handful of clubs, which have commissioned a legal opinion saying it is illegal to cede Serie A ownership rights to third parties and to transfer the broadcasting rights to a separate media company.
The opinion by law professor Andrea Zoppini, seen by the Financial Times, says the creation of the new group will therefore require an amendment to the law.
According to three people involved in the negotiations, Serie A officials have contacted Sky and DAZN to start negotiations for a potential one-year renewal of their broadcast agreements, which are set to expire in June next year.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Aston Villa Chief Exec Christian Purslow is the first from a Premier League club to come out in public against Project Big Picture - from the Telegraph
Aston Villa attack clandestine talks behind Project Big Picture
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 14, 2020
Aston Villa have launched an attack on clandestine talks behind Project Big Picture, adding it was "high unlikely" Premier League clubs would provide support for the radical overhaul.
Christian Purslow, the club's chief executive, singled out Rick Parry, the English Football League chairman, for criticism, saying his talks with Liverpool and Manchester United should have been done through the "front door" rather than in Boston or Florida.
"I think it's amazing that the head of the EFL, which is already receiving nearly £400million pounds a year, would have chosen to go public with a plan without discussing it directly," Purslow said.
Appearing on Radio 4's Today programme, Purslow became the first Premier League chief executive to go public with reservations. He said there would be a "very honest transparent dialogue" in which he hoped that alternative "concrete proposals" to rescue the football pyramid would finally be agreed upon. Telegraph Sport disclosed last week how a £40million grant, plus £110million loan, is the most likely counter-offer to the EFL's previous £250million request.
Of Project Big Picture, Purslow said: "I think it's highly unlikely that this plan, as it's been described in public through the document that has been published, is going to get much traction within the Premier League itself. I think it's come at a time of crisis, at a time when serious conversations are well under way."
He said the league and Government had been in close contact "about how we address the short-term financial crisis in football and some of the longer-term structural issues that also need addressing".
In proposals disclosed in a world exclusive by Telegraph Sport on Sunday, the most lucrative sports league in the world would be reduced to 18 teams, and controlling power would be in the hands of the biggest clubs. In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League's inception in 1992, there would be a £250million rescue package for the English Football League to see them through the Covid crisis.
"While I think there are elements of what we read in this plan that make great sense, and there indeed is a need for football to look over the long term at the structures, the economic relationships between the top leagues, even the sporting relationships between those top leagues, but in the short term, the priority is funding clubs that are in danger of going out of business," Purslow added.
The Government is already threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League cannot agree a rescue package with the English Football League "within the existing measures".
Purslow defended the Premier League's record, however, in having a "contractual obligation in place that drives money down from the Premier League to the lower levels" through solidarity payments. "While I applaud the notion that the Championship, with League One and League Two want to engage with the Premier League, the way to do that is to the chairmen, the chief executives, through the front door and not to head over to Florida or Boston and discuss it with only two Premier League teams."
The 20 top tier shareholders will all be offered a chance to express their view on Project Big Picture later on Wednesday. "I expect there to be a very honest transparent dialogue amongst the 20 Premier League clubs today, let's face it," he added.
"I also expect there to be concrete proposals put forward by the Premier League executive on funding for lower levels of football. That's what I hope to see happen today, but I don't think we should give too much credence to this particular plan. A much broader long term plan for football is what I would expect to come from the Premier League."
Aston Villa attack clandestine talks behind Project Big Picture
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 14, 2020
Aston Villa have launched an attack on clandestine talks behind Project Big Picture, adding it was "high unlikely" Premier League clubs would provide support for the radical overhaul.
Christian Purslow, the club's chief executive, singled out Rick Parry, the English Football League chairman, for criticism, saying his talks with Liverpool and Manchester United should have been done through the "front door" rather than in Boston or Florida.
"I think it's amazing that the head of the EFL, which is already receiving nearly £400million pounds a year, would have chosen to go public with a plan without discussing it directly," Purslow said.
Appearing on Radio 4's Today programme, Purslow became the first Premier League chief executive to go public with reservations. He said there would be a "very honest transparent dialogue" in which he hoped that alternative "concrete proposals" to rescue the football pyramid would finally be agreed upon. Telegraph Sport disclosed last week how a £40million grant, plus £110million loan, is the most likely counter-offer to the EFL's previous £250million request.
Of Project Big Picture, Purslow said: "I think it's highly unlikely that this plan, as it's been described in public through the document that has been published, is going to get much traction within the Premier League itself. I think it's come at a time of crisis, at a time when serious conversations are well under way."
He said the league and Government had been in close contact "about how we address the short-term financial crisis in football and some of the longer-term structural issues that also need addressing".
In proposals disclosed in a world exclusive by Telegraph Sport on Sunday, the most lucrative sports league in the world would be reduced to 18 teams, and controlling power would be in the hands of the biggest clubs. In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League's inception in 1992, there would be a £250million rescue package for the English Football League to see them through the Covid crisis.
"While I think there are elements of what we read in this plan that make great sense, and there indeed is a need for football to look over the long term at the structures, the economic relationships between the top leagues, even the sporting relationships between those top leagues, but in the short term, the priority is funding clubs that are in danger of going out of business," Purslow added.
The Government is already threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League cannot agree a rescue package with the English Football League "within the existing measures".
Purslow defended the Premier League's record, however, in having a "contractual obligation in place that drives money down from the Premier League to the lower levels" through solidarity payments. "While I applaud the notion that the Championship, with League One and League Two want to engage with the Premier League, the way to do that is to the chairmen, the chief executives, through the front door and not to head over to Florida or Boston and discuss it with only two Premier League teams."
The 20 top tier shareholders will all be offered a chance to express their view on Project Big Picture later on Wednesday. "I expect there to be a very honest transparent dialogue amongst the 20 Premier League clubs today, let's face it," he added.
"I also expect there to be concrete proposals put forward by the Premier League executive on funding for lower levels of football. That's what I hope to see happen today, but I don't think we should give too much credence to this particular plan. A much broader long term plan for football is what I would expect to come from the Premier League."
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Vysyble with a blog piece on Project Big Picture - they kind of thing they have been predicting for years as a result of American ownership in the Premier League
https://vysyble.com/blog
https://vysyble.com/blog
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have been laughing about the "we thought we had signed Cristiano Ronaldo for £4m" stories this week from Arsenal (Wenger has been ubiquitous on the media) and Liverpool (there are probably others) - why laughing CR7's (as he is now known) agent is Jorge Mendes, no doubt he though he could make much more money from the £12.24m Manchester United paid for the player.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Billionaire Mel Morris at it now - the gup who paid £80m for Pride Park, even though he already owned it, and invented almost every dodge of FFP in the bookChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:26 amas Chairmen across the EFL today appeared to be mostly in favour of Project Big Picture
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ig-picture
it seemed to be because they wanted more money and for nothing - rather than grants where it was most need (Leagues 1 and 2) and offers of means test loans in the Championship - you know that place where clubs sell themselves property and whatever price they choose. amongst other ludicrous ploys to get round Profit ans Sustainability rules
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -head.html
In particular I am struggling to get my head around this one - Steve Gibson, who has blown hundreds of millions on his club to cover losses over the last 30+ years now thinks it is worth giving the big six whatever they want for false promises - These guys have actually been given copies of the document but don't seem to understand that it just doesn't add-up
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... ivion.html
and yet for the many that do not operate with any sense, they expect to be just to be given money so that they can complain about being backed into a corner later - It is they themselves who backed them into the corner as @TariqPanja says
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 9407412224
though I do believe it is possible to have a 100+ professional clubs
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... cture.html
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
A couple of interesting threads from Simon Chadwick, the first in particular partners well with the thinking of VysybleChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:37 amVysyble with a blog piece on Project Big Picture - they kind of thing they have been predicting for years as a result of American ownership in the Premier League
https://vysyble.com/blog
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4445142017
the second looks at how UK government treats the game continues to test it's patience
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 9179284481
It always has been and continues to be so out of touch with what it means to the country, It is one of the things that worries me about an independent regulator
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 1961420800
Of course FIFA has regulations about Government intervention in the game, the ultimate sanction being suspension/expulsion from it's international competitions
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Aston Villa owners chuck another £30m at the club as share capital
https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1316 ... 46/photo/1
on the positive side it means the club are not piling this up as debt
https://twitter.com/vysyble/status/1316 ... 46/photo/1
on the positive side it means the club are not piling this up as debt
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Project Big Picture documentation claimed the media rights for the Premier League were going to grow 10% in the next cycle (even though the PPTV deal collapse has cost the Premier League around 125 of it's total overseas Broadcasting rights revenue in the current cycle). If you still believe they were telling the truth you probably need to read this from SportsProMedia.com
Sports media rights values have reached ‘high-water mark’, says study
3rd Age of Sport manifesto calls on industry to become ‘fully-rounded media business’.
Posted: October 14 2020By: Sam Carr
- 83% of Seven League survey respondents believe a rights correction is due
- Study says sport should diversify revenue streams to incorporate ecommerce, streaming, ticketing, sponsorship, membership, loyalty and wagering
The value of sports media rights have reached a ‘high-water mark’, according to 83 per cent of respondents in a new study.
The 3rd Age of Sport manifesto, produced by sports digital agency Mailman and the Seven League consultancy, is based on consultations with 30 sports executives with direct experience in rights negotiations, the overwhelming majority of whom believe that a rights correction is due.
According to the study, the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the sports industry’s transition into a third age, where digital disruption is affecting every area of the landscape, including content, sponsorship, data, streaming and competition for audience attention.
Describing now as sport’s ‘Napster moment’, the study claims that the industry’s established B2B revenues are under threat, meaning it will need to adapt in the wake of Covid-19 by addressing how it is structured and where it derives its income.
As a result, the manifesto calls on sport to end its over-reliance on broadcast fees, diversify its revenue streams and become a ‘fully-rounded media business’ that incorporates ecommerce, streaming, ticketing, sponsorship, membership, loyalty and wagering.
“While we may have reached Everest with many media and sports properties, international audiences are proving to show sports are increasingly becoming more global and with that presenting new broadcast and digital rights opportunities,” said Mailman Group chief executive Andrew Collins.
“Global platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have accelerated the need for an international ‘multi-platform, multi-product’ strategy - rights holders who are able to adapt quickly should realise gains.”
The manifesto points out that the types of content people consume is evolving, while it also argues that sports rights owners now face stiff competition from new media properties that focus on athlete journeys, back stories and lifestyles.
The study adds that the democratisation of the ability to broadcast means sports are also competing with the voices of young creators who are native to the digital platforms that they use.
Therefore, the manifesto advises that sports look to develop more direct relationships with their fans by developing new business models around ecommerce, subscriptions and membership.
“Digital transformation has given sports the opportunity to go direct to consumer, but the same power has been given to everyone else,” added Seven League chairman Richard Ayers. “Amazon and the other big tech companies are the gatekeepers. Sponsors can be more certain of their ROI by going direct. And those who have the data have the power.
“Meanwhile, people have become fixated on “owning the audience” when the audience does not want to be owned. Trust is the currency of the future. Sports must master the value exchange, and through that build trust.”
Sports media rights values have reached ‘high-water mark’, says study
3rd Age of Sport manifesto calls on industry to become ‘fully-rounded media business’.
Posted: October 14 2020By: Sam Carr
- 83% of Seven League survey respondents believe a rights correction is due
- Study says sport should diversify revenue streams to incorporate ecommerce, streaming, ticketing, sponsorship, membership, loyalty and wagering
The value of sports media rights have reached a ‘high-water mark’, according to 83 per cent of respondents in a new study.
The 3rd Age of Sport manifesto, produced by sports digital agency Mailman and the Seven League consultancy, is based on consultations with 30 sports executives with direct experience in rights negotiations, the overwhelming majority of whom believe that a rights correction is due.
According to the study, the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the sports industry’s transition into a third age, where digital disruption is affecting every area of the landscape, including content, sponsorship, data, streaming and competition for audience attention.
Describing now as sport’s ‘Napster moment’, the study claims that the industry’s established B2B revenues are under threat, meaning it will need to adapt in the wake of Covid-19 by addressing how it is structured and where it derives its income.
As a result, the manifesto calls on sport to end its over-reliance on broadcast fees, diversify its revenue streams and become a ‘fully-rounded media business’ that incorporates ecommerce, streaming, ticketing, sponsorship, membership, loyalty and wagering.
“While we may have reached Everest with many media and sports properties, international audiences are proving to show sports are increasingly becoming more global and with that presenting new broadcast and digital rights opportunities,” said Mailman Group chief executive Andrew Collins.
“Global platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have accelerated the need for an international ‘multi-platform, multi-product’ strategy - rights holders who are able to adapt quickly should realise gains.”
The manifesto points out that the types of content people consume is evolving, while it also argues that sports rights owners now face stiff competition from new media properties that focus on athlete journeys, back stories and lifestyles.
The study adds that the democratisation of the ability to broadcast means sports are also competing with the voices of young creators who are native to the digital platforms that they use.
Therefore, the manifesto advises that sports look to develop more direct relationships with their fans by developing new business models around ecommerce, subscriptions and membership.
“Digital transformation has given sports the opportunity to go direct to consumer, but the same power has been given to everyone else,” added Seven League chairman Richard Ayers. “Amazon and the other big tech companies are the gatekeepers. Sponsors can be more certain of their ROI by going direct. And those who have the data have the power.
“Meanwhile, people have become fixated on “owning the audience” when the audience does not want to be owned. Trust is the currency of the future. Sports must master the value exchange, and through that build trust.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
In light of the detail in Project Big Picture I find this new commercial tie-up between Manchester United and Laybuy - a buy now pay later vulture - incredibly appropriate, and a little ironic. From SportsProMedia.com
Manchester United announce new Laybuy deal
Premier League giants also prolong partnership with Melitta.
Posted: October 14 2020By: Ed Dixon
- Laybuy named official buy now, pay later partner
- Coffee brand Melitta extends United agreement for second time; first partnered in 2017
- Meanwhile, Red Devils’ Chinese entertainment centres to be called ‘Theatre of Dreams’
English top-flight soccer club Manchester United have strengthened their commercial portfolio by announcing a new partnership with buy now, pay later (BNPL) provider Laybuy and extending their agreement with German coffee company Melitta.
Laybuy becomes the Premier League side’s official BNPL partner. The deal will allow fans to buy club merchandise in the Manchester United megastore at Old Trafford and use the Laybuy app to spread their payments with weekly interest-free instalments over six weeks.
The company will also look to further integrate its offering across a number of United’s other retail platforms in 2021.
In August, Laybuy secured a multi-year regional partnership with United’s rivals Manchester City covering the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Melitta, which signed on as the United’s official coffee partner in November 2017, has extended its tie-up with the club to get further access to the Red Devils’ worldwide fanbase. New activations will look to go beyond traditional sponsorship and feature various campaigns to complement Melitta’s existing brand exposure at Old Trafford.
The coffee company had previously reworked its partnership with United in August 2018, expanding the regional agreement to a global one.
Premier League clubs to discuss Project Big Picture amid ‘threat’ of breakaway
Meanwhile, United have announced further details for their entertainment centres across China, with the first set to open in Beijing before the end of the year.
The complexes will now be known as ‘Theatre of Dreams’ in a nod to United’s Old Trafford home.
The project was initially revealed in January 2019 when the club partnered with Chinese property developer Harves to work on the Manchester United Entertainment and Experience Centres concept.
Five centres are planned across the country, including in Shanghai, Shenyang and Changsha. They will feature a number of immersive, state-of-the-art activities and attractions, including an interactive journey through United’s history.
Visitors will also be able to buy official club merchandise from the venues and eat at a branded restaurant.
“Theatre of Dreams is an entirely new sports entertainment experience,” said Manchester United managing director Richard Arnold.
“This represents a strengthening of our longstanding commitment to China and a deepening of our relationship with Manchester United fans across the country.
“Our guests will discover new, exciting, fun, and inspiring ways to engage with the club and one another.”
Manchester United announce new Laybuy deal
Premier League giants also prolong partnership with Melitta.
Posted: October 14 2020By: Ed Dixon
- Laybuy named official buy now, pay later partner
- Coffee brand Melitta extends United agreement for second time; first partnered in 2017
- Meanwhile, Red Devils’ Chinese entertainment centres to be called ‘Theatre of Dreams’
English top-flight soccer club Manchester United have strengthened their commercial portfolio by announcing a new partnership with buy now, pay later (BNPL) provider Laybuy and extending their agreement with German coffee company Melitta.
Laybuy becomes the Premier League side’s official BNPL partner. The deal will allow fans to buy club merchandise in the Manchester United megastore at Old Trafford and use the Laybuy app to spread their payments with weekly interest-free instalments over six weeks.
The company will also look to further integrate its offering across a number of United’s other retail platforms in 2021.
In August, Laybuy secured a multi-year regional partnership with United’s rivals Manchester City covering the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Melitta, which signed on as the United’s official coffee partner in November 2017, has extended its tie-up with the club to get further access to the Red Devils’ worldwide fanbase. New activations will look to go beyond traditional sponsorship and feature various campaigns to complement Melitta’s existing brand exposure at Old Trafford.
The coffee company had previously reworked its partnership with United in August 2018, expanding the regional agreement to a global one.
Premier League clubs to discuss Project Big Picture amid ‘threat’ of breakaway
Meanwhile, United have announced further details for their entertainment centres across China, with the first set to open in Beijing before the end of the year.
The complexes will now be known as ‘Theatre of Dreams’ in a nod to United’s Old Trafford home.
The project was initially revealed in January 2019 when the club partnered with Chinese property developer Harves to work on the Manchester United Entertainment and Experience Centres concept.
Five centres are planned across the country, including in Shanghai, Shenyang and Changsha. They will feature a number of immersive, state-of-the-art activities and attractions, including an interactive journey through United’s history.
Visitors will also be able to buy official club merchandise from the venues and eat at a branded restaurant.
“Theatre of Dreams is an entirely new sports entertainment experience,” said Manchester United managing director Richard Arnold.
“This represents a strengthening of our longstanding commitment to China and a deepening of our relationship with Manchester United fans across the country.
“Our guests will discover new, exciting, fun, and inspiring ways to engage with the club and one another.”
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Considering this afternoon's news this article may seem a little dated even though it was published only a few hours ago - I am posting it because it includes a section on the desire to Americanise the game a long running theme on the thread but one that has been key today - from SportsProMedia
Jamie Gardner | Project Big Picture is nothing more than a thinly veiled power grab
Press Association’s chief sports reporter questions the timing and the motives behind Liverpool and Manchester United’s US-inspired plan to remodel English soccer.
Posted: October 14 2020 By: Jamie Gardner
Comedians say timing is everything, but there is nothing remotely funny about two of England's most prestigious clubs choosing now to seek a greater say in the running of the Premier League.
Liverpool and Manchester United would argue that the timing was not of their choosing, with details of Project Big Picture (PBP) plans leaked on 11th October ahead of a meeting scheduled for later the same day but which never happened.
But making coronavirus rescue packages to the English Football League (EFL) and the Football Association (FA) part of the project added a time factor to the discussions which feels deeply unwelcome.
EFL bosses I have spoken to have welcomed some elements of PBP - notably the fairer revenue distribution model - but accept the changes to Premier League voting rights to favour the so-called 'big six', in the words of Forest Green Rovers chairman Dale Vince, "stands out as a bit of a power grab".
Others have openly questioned the permanence of the promised 25 per cent share of broadcast revenue.
‘What’s to stop them changing the distribution methodology in future, to say ten per cent?’ Tranmere co-owner Nicola Palios wrote on Twitter. ‘We must not be blinded by the short term offer of a cash lifeline. It’s like someone offering you a million pounds but shooting you soon after.’
Privately, those behind PBP accept there are no guarantees that the fairer revenue share - the most attractive and altruistic element of the plan - will remain at that level. Without such guarantees, it is difficult to escape the sense that the hardships caused by the pandemic are being exploited by the country's wealthiest clubs.
Darren Bailey, the former director of football governance and regulation at the FA, and now a consultant at Charles Russell Speechlys, points out the American flavour to the PBP plans - no great surprise given the ownership of the two clubs leading the charge.
"One of the most interesting dimensions is the discernible shift in trying to use this as a way of driving a slightly more Americanised model," he told me.
"The 18 teams, removing three automatic relegation places, this notion that teams who have been in the league the longest getting a special status, it starts to look a little bit like a closed league which tends to play into the American model of entertainment and profit rather than the European model.
"Another element of that is the proposed control over new owners, which is very Americanised in allowing those already in the room to determine who can come in.
“You’re now seeing a new Americanised approach, and the cost for that regulatory autonomy is higher levels of redistribution. The question becomes whether it’s possible to lock in such a model in perpetuity or whether you ultimately end up with a short-term collective bargaining agreement for eight to 10 years."
There is a time and a place for deeper discussion on revenue distribution in the game - but this does not feel like it. And coupling it with desperately-needed rescue packages smacks of opportunism.
Conversations I’ve had suggest Newcastle's failed Saudi takeover could yet turn out to be key in safeguarding the English football pyramid.
England’s top flight will have witnessed with some concern events in Germany in recent weeks, where BeIN Sports chose not to renew its Bundesliga deal because of concerns over the level of piracy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
The Premier League's hopes of renewing its own deal with BeIN for the 2022 to 2025 cycle would have been seriously weakened - if not wrecked altogether - had the Saudi takeover proceeded.
As it is, my understanding is that the English league can be confident of succeeding where the Bundesliga failed when the negotiations begin. The Premier League remains the most watched league in the world, its teams and stars have a strong global presence, notably Liverpool and Mohamed Salah in the MENA region.
Equally as importantly, its visibly strong stance on anti-piracy goes in its favour and is understood to have impressed BeIN, unlike Serie A, whose decision to stage matches in Saudi Arabia drew public criticism from the Qatar-based media company.
The oil-rich state's public investment fund had stood ready to take an 80 per cent stake in the Toon, but walked away after it felt no progress was being made. The Premier League had concerns over the extent to which the fund was connected to the Saudi state, which a World Trade Organisation (WTO) report, published in June, found had facilitated sports piracy.
Intellectual property theft is one of the key battlegrounds for the Premier League and other rights holders and it has a team internally set up to combat it. The PA news agency learned in July that a group of Saudi businessmen offered to cut in on BeIN's deal as an attempt to smooth the passage of the takeover, claiming it had no legal validity in the kingdom anyway.
It is understood the offer was rejected out of hand.
As the UK government looks to the Premier League, rightly or wrongly, to be the saviour of an English pyramid starved of income from match-going supporters due to the coronavirus pandemic, it is more vital than ever that broadcasting income remains as stable as it can be.
One more rich club would not have made the league itself any richer - and while Newcastle fans and even their owner Mike Ashley may still be angry at the league's handling of the takeover, for the league's long-term health it looks like the best outcome.
Jamie Gardner | Project Big Picture is nothing more than a thinly veiled power grab
Press Association’s chief sports reporter questions the timing and the motives behind Liverpool and Manchester United’s US-inspired plan to remodel English soccer.
Posted: October 14 2020 By: Jamie Gardner
Comedians say timing is everything, but there is nothing remotely funny about two of England's most prestigious clubs choosing now to seek a greater say in the running of the Premier League.
Liverpool and Manchester United would argue that the timing was not of their choosing, with details of Project Big Picture (PBP) plans leaked on 11th October ahead of a meeting scheduled for later the same day but which never happened.
But making coronavirus rescue packages to the English Football League (EFL) and the Football Association (FA) part of the project added a time factor to the discussions which feels deeply unwelcome.
EFL bosses I have spoken to have welcomed some elements of PBP - notably the fairer revenue distribution model - but accept the changes to Premier League voting rights to favour the so-called 'big six', in the words of Forest Green Rovers chairman Dale Vince, "stands out as a bit of a power grab".
Others have openly questioned the permanence of the promised 25 per cent share of broadcast revenue.
‘What’s to stop them changing the distribution methodology in future, to say ten per cent?’ Tranmere co-owner Nicola Palios wrote on Twitter. ‘We must not be blinded by the short term offer of a cash lifeline. It’s like someone offering you a million pounds but shooting you soon after.’
Privately, those behind PBP accept there are no guarantees that the fairer revenue share - the most attractive and altruistic element of the plan - will remain at that level. Without such guarantees, it is difficult to escape the sense that the hardships caused by the pandemic are being exploited by the country's wealthiest clubs.
Darren Bailey, the former director of football governance and regulation at the FA, and now a consultant at Charles Russell Speechlys, points out the American flavour to the PBP plans - no great surprise given the ownership of the two clubs leading the charge.
"One of the most interesting dimensions is the discernible shift in trying to use this as a way of driving a slightly more Americanised model," he told me.
"The 18 teams, removing three automatic relegation places, this notion that teams who have been in the league the longest getting a special status, it starts to look a little bit like a closed league which tends to play into the American model of entertainment and profit rather than the European model.
"Another element of that is the proposed control over new owners, which is very Americanised in allowing those already in the room to determine who can come in.
“You’re now seeing a new Americanised approach, and the cost for that regulatory autonomy is higher levels of redistribution. The question becomes whether it’s possible to lock in such a model in perpetuity or whether you ultimately end up with a short-term collective bargaining agreement for eight to 10 years."
There is a time and a place for deeper discussion on revenue distribution in the game - but this does not feel like it. And coupling it with desperately-needed rescue packages smacks of opportunism.
Conversations I’ve had suggest Newcastle's failed Saudi takeover could yet turn out to be key in safeguarding the English football pyramid.
England’s top flight will have witnessed with some concern events in Germany in recent weeks, where BeIN Sports chose not to renew its Bundesliga deal because of concerns over the level of piracy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
The Premier League's hopes of renewing its own deal with BeIN for the 2022 to 2025 cycle would have been seriously weakened - if not wrecked altogether - had the Saudi takeover proceeded.
As it is, my understanding is that the English league can be confident of succeeding where the Bundesliga failed when the negotiations begin. The Premier League remains the most watched league in the world, its teams and stars have a strong global presence, notably Liverpool and Mohamed Salah in the MENA region.
Equally as importantly, its visibly strong stance on anti-piracy goes in its favour and is understood to have impressed BeIN, unlike Serie A, whose decision to stage matches in Saudi Arabia drew public criticism from the Qatar-based media company.
The oil-rich state's public investment fund had stood ready to take an 80 per cent stake in the Toon, but walked away after it felt no progress was being made. The Premier League had concerns over the extent to which the fund was connected to the Saudi state, which a World Trade Organisation (WTO) report, published in June, found had facilitated sports piracy.
Intellectual property theft is one of the key battlegrounds for the Premier League and other rights holders and it has a team internally set up to combat it. The PA news agency learned in July that a group of Saudi businessmen offered to cut in on BeIN's deal as an attempt to smooth the passage of the takeover, claiming it had no legal validity in the kingdom anyway.
It is understood the offer was rejected out of hand.
As the UK government looks to the Premier League, rightly or wrongly, to be the saviour of an English pyramid starved of income from match-going supporters due to the coronavirus pandemic, it is more vital than ever that broadcasting income remains as stable as it can be.
One more rich club would not have made the league itself any richer - and while Newcastle fans and even their owner Mike Ashley may still be angry at the league's handling of the takeover, for the league's long-term health it looks like the best outcome.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have to say that I think @YannickRamcke has got this observation spot on re the Mediapro/French Ligue situation - you just knew it was coming with or without CovidChester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:06 pmI have been saying for a while that the French Lique's new domestic broadcast deal with Mediapro was a risky affair - the season is only in it's second month of it's deal with it's new partner - who are having to start a presence from scratch in France and the y have failed to pay their 2nd instalment of fees, are in a legal fight with Canal+ over carriage rights and now want to renegotiate the deal because of Covid - from SportsProMedia
Mediapro misses Ligue 1 rights payment as it seeks to renegotiate fee
Agency’s CEO says Covid-19 is impacting value of €780m a year broadcast deal.
Posted: October 8 2020By: Tom Bassam
- Mediapro made first €172.3m rights payment back in August but has not paid 6th October instalment
- LFP refused to grant a delay in rights fee payment
- New Téléfoot network just weeks into first season as Ligue 1 and Ligue 2's main domestic broadcaster
Mediapro chief executive Jaume Roures has revealed that the rights agency is seeking to renegotiate its broadcast partnership with French soccer's Professional Football League (LFP).
Just months into its first season as the main domestic broadcaster for the top-flight Ligue 1 and second-tier Ligue 2, Mediapro is claiming the value of its deals is already being adversely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.
Mediapro is paying €780 millio n (US$916.8 million) per season for its Ligue 1 contract and is also the lead partner alongside BeIN Sports in the €64 million (US$72.9 million) a year deal for Ligue 2 rights.
In August, Mediapro paid its first instalment of the season, worth €172.3 million (US$200.5 million), but Roures has now confirmed to L’Équipe that his company will not make its second payment, which was due on 5th October, and that it is looking to reduce its contribution.
“We have asked to speak about our contract this season because of Covid-19,” said Roures. “It is obvious that Covid is affecting a lot of aspects of our being able to exploit our rights. We want to talk about that.”
He added: “We want to renegotiate the contract for this season. It has been very affected by Covid-19, everyone knows because everyone is suffering through it. We are not questioning the project as it is. But the bars and restaurants are closed, advertising is down - these are things that everyone knows.”
The LFP released a statement confirming that Mediapro requested a payment delay for its 5th October Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 rights fee instalment on 24th September but that was rejected by the league body.
The LFP said it working to ensure payment to its club by 17th October.
Roures did not suggest a more suitable fee but also pointed out that the LFP has asked the French government for compensation as a result of the losses caused by the pandemic.
Seeking to strike an amiable tone, Roures insisted Mediapro is not seeking to cancel its contract.
“The contract was established in conditions that are completely different to the current situation,” he added. “That is obvious. We need to speak about it. Aside from that, we will see how it ends up. We are not putting into question the contract, but we are putting into question the current situation.”
https://twitter.com/YannickRamcke/statu ... 3515153408
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
David Conn in the Guardian still doesn't seem to realise that 25% of not very much = not very much at all and that is the only reason the EFL was offered it in the first place -
Project Big Picture power grab is shot down but plan's ugliest parts will be back
David Conn
The reshaping of English football is on hold but Liverpool’s owner is said to regard it as a win that clubs will hold a review
Wed 14 Oct 2020 22.07 BST Last modified on Wed 14 Oct 2020 22.40 BST
John Henry and Joel Glazer were not on the Premier League video meeting to promote the Project Big Picture they worked up in the US to reshape English football, or to take the flak from its shooting down by the other clubs. Despite the Premier League’s emphatic statement that the plans “will not be endorsed or pursued”, Liverpool’s owner is said to regard it as a win that the 20 clubs have committed to a strategic review, in which some of his proposals will inevitably be discussed.
Some in the EFL were also trying to look on the bright side after a fraught few days that have not cast the most flattering floodlight on the inner workings of the great game. They figure that at least the idea was surprisingly raised in the Liverpool and Manchester United plan, for a 25% sharing of the Premier League’s multibillions with the EFL, and must now be negotiated.
Others, though, were feeling that in the midst of this immediate crisis for the game, they have been left with not much more to clutch than stale air.
The stinking problem for the plan was that the gleaming idea of mending the huge gap between the two leagues 28 years after the Premier League breakaway was wrapped in the horrible idea for control by the so-called big six clubs, and that looked close to another breakaway.
The fact that Henry and Glazer’s “project” envisaged each Premier League club slicing off eight live matches per season to be sold internationally via their own streaming platforms made the aim of voting control look like a plan to carve up future rights for their own treasure chests. Liverpool, United and the other top clubs are seeing that streaming will become potentially a vast earner from the fans that their clubs’ big names and appeal have garnered around the world.
This period during the 2019-22 TV deals, that were sold for £8.6bn – the EFL’s deal is £360m over the same three years – was always likely to produce a battle from the six for a greater share next time. Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive who held the original TV distribution together for so long, ultimately presided over a surrender of some international rights share to the top six. Henry had publicly pressed the case for that.
Scudamore announced he was stepping down almost on the same day, the end of an era. Candidates for his replacement found reasons not to take on apparently one of the great administrative jobs in sport, before Richard Masters, then the league’s commercial director, was elevated and an end put to the search.
Perhaps Liverpool and United, having seen the vehement reaction against their bare-faced bid for voting control, may temper it through this strategic review and other arguments to come over the next round of money. Perhaps they will push on with the same demands. The Glazers were bold enough to buy United with £525m of borrowed money then make the club and their fans pay all the spirit-sapping costs; Henry is a billionaire with a very keen view of his assets’ potential value globally, and he won a battle over the international rights.
Even without a European breakaway threat to realistically wield, the six are not shy to remind the rest that they account for a very big bulk of the TV audience. Even if the 14, three of whom change every season, dig in and keep the arrangements as they are – and their own £100m-plus slices – the Champions League will expand from 2024 inevitably, so the participating big clubs will grow richer anyway.
But the startling difference in the power-seizing plan this time was the offer of 25% redistribution to the EFL. Since 1992, when the Football League First Division clubs broke away to keep all the satellite TV money, and left the other three divisions marooned and resentful behind, no other consolidation of power has offered more sharing with the pyramid. Hence the weird spectacle this week of the great majority of EFL clubs welcoming the plan for the easing it could provide of their endless financial struggles, even as it was generally denounced as a greedy grab by the wealthiest.
Some EFL clubs believe that prospect will stay on the table through this strategic review. But on the same day, the Premier League clubs announced a bare minimum of the £250m short-term crisis fund that the EFL chairman, Rick Parry, had been seeking: merely £20m guaranteed for League One and League Two clubs, with more available to be sought as loans.
Even at this stage, a possible, gloomy result of the review can be imagined, where some ugly parts of Henry’s plan, more power and money for the big clubs, are conceded, but none of the progressive parts.
Football’s deeply unequal, unsatisfactory and wobbly status quo has been reasserted, for now.
Project Big Picture power grab is shot down but plan's ugliest parts will be back
David Conn
The reshaping of English football is on hold but Liverpool’s owner is said to regard it as a win that clubs will hold a review
Wed 14 Oct 2020 22.07 BST Last modified on Wed 14 Oct 2020 22.40 BST
John Henry and Joel Glazer were not on the Premier League video meeting to promote the Project Big Picture they worked up in the US to reshape English football, or to take the flak from its shooting down by the other clubs. Despite the Premier League’s emphatic statement that the plans “will not be endorsed or pursued”, Liverpool’s owner is said to regard it as a win that the 20 clubs have committed to a strategic review, in which some of his proposals will inevitably be discussed.
Some in the EFL were also trying to look on the bright side after a fraught few days that have not cast the most flattering floodlight on the inner workings of the great game. They figure that at least the idea was surprisingly raised in the Liverpool and Manchester United plan, for a 25% sharing of the Premier League’s multibillions with the EFL, and must now be negotiated.
Others, though, were feeling that in the midst of this immediate crisis for the game, they have been left with not much more to clutch than stale air.
The stinking problem for the plan was that the gleaming idea of mending the huge gap between the two leagues 28 years after the Premier League breakaway was wrapped in the horrible idea for control by the so-called big six clubs, and that looked close to another breakaway.
The fact that Henry and Glazer’s “project” envisaged each Premier League club slicing off eight live matches per season to be sold internationally via their own streaming platforms made the aim of voting control look like a plan to carve up future rights for their own treasure chests. Liverpool, United and the other top clubs are seeing that streaming will become potentially a vast earner from the fans that their clubs’ big names and appeal have garnered around the world.
This period during the 2019-22 TV deals, that were sold for £8.6bn – the EFL’s deal is £360m over the same three years – was always likely to produce a battle from the six for a greater share next time. Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive who held the original TV distribution together for so long, ultimately presided over a surrender of some international rights share to the top six. Henry had publicly pressed the case for that.
Scudamore announced he was stepping down almost on the same day, the end of an era. Candidates for his replacement found reasons not to take on apparently one of the great administrative jobs in sport, before Richard Masters, then the league’s commercial director, was elevated and an end put to the search.
Perhaps Liverpool and United, having seen the vehement reaction against their bare-faced bid for voting control, may temper it through this strategic review and other arguments to come over the next round of money. Perhaps they will push on with the same demands. The Glazers were bold enough to buy United with £525m of borrowed money then make the club and their fans pay all the spirit-sapping costs; Henry is a billionaire with a very keen view of his assets’ potential value globally, and he won a battle over the international rights.
Even without a European breakaway threat to realistically wield, the six are not shy to remind the rest that they account for a very big bulk of the TV audience. Even if the 14, three of whom change every season, dig in and keep the arrangements as they are – and their own £100m-plus slices – the Champions League will expand from 2024 inevitably, so the participating big clubs will grow richer anyway.
But the startling difference in the power-seizing plan this time was the offer of 25% redistribution to the EFL. Since 1992, when the Football League First Division clubs broke away to keep all the satellite TV money, and left the other three divisions marooned and resentful behind, no other consolidation of power has offered more sharing with the pyramid. Hence the weird spectacle this week of the great majority of EFL clubs welcoming the plan for the easing it could provide of their endless financial struggles, even as it was generally denounced as a greedy grab by the wealthiest.
Some EFL clubs believe that prospect will stay on the table through this strategic review. But on the same day, the Premier League clubs announced a bare minimum of the £250m short-term crisis fund that the EFL chairman, Rick Parry, had been seeking: merely £20m guaranteed for League One and League Two clubs, with more available to be sought as loans.
Even at this stage, a possible, gloomy result of the review can be imagined, where some ugly parts of Henry’s plan, more power and money for the big clubs, are conceded, but none of the progressive parts.
Football’s deeply unequal, unsatisfactory and wobbly status quo has been reasserted, for now.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
More fractious comments from a senior government figure concerning football - but this comes with a rebuke from the company that has committed hundreds of millions to the game - from the TelegraphChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:06 pmA couple of interesting threads from Simon Chadwick, the first in particular partners well with the thinking of Vysyble
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4445142017
the second looks at how UK government treats the game continues to test it's patience
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 9179284481
It always has been and continues to be so out of touch with what it means to the country, It is one of the things that worries me about an independent regulator
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 1961420800
Of course FIFA has regulations about Government intervention in the game, the ultimate sanction being suspension/expulsion from it's international competitions
BT Sport furious at Culture Secretary for saying Merseyside derby should be free-to-air
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 14, 2020
BT Sport have slapped down the Culture Secretary for suggesting the Merseyside derby should be screened on free-to-air due to tightened lockdown measures facing the city of Liverpool.
The idea was raised by Oliver Dowden as he expressed misgivings to MPs about the league's controversial £14.95 pay-per-view (PPV) plan for additional games to be shown while the crowd ban continues.
Everton against Liverpool is due to be screened on BT Sport's main channels, rather than PPV. However, with the city now facing the highest tier of coronavirus restrictions, Damian Green MP suggested there was a risk of supporters breaking lockdown rules to watch the match at other households.
Mr Dowden told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in response: “I wouldn’t accept the premise that people in Liverpool are going to breach the rules at all, but if BT are able (to make the match free to air) as a gesture that would be a great thing to do of course.”
The proposal was described as "impossible" by BT on Wednesday. “Broadcast revenue is critical to ensuring that football clubs stay financially afloat, and together we help protect the overall football ecosystem," a spokeswoman added. "It’s impossible to start applying different commercial models to the many differing and dynamic local lockdown situations.”
The Premier League, meanwhile, remains under pressure to review its plan to charge fans for other games from this weekend. No reduction was announced after Wednesday's emergency meeting to discuss 'Project Big Picture'.
Dowden said he was “not massively impressed” by the plan to sell off matches not selected for regular television coverage on BT and Sky Sports’ Box Office services at £14.95. “Actions like this jar with this idea of coming together during this time of crisis,” he said.
The world's richest league confirmed two days earlier that half of games for the rest of this month and start of next would be sold individually to viewers on Sky Sports and BT Sport's Box Office in an attempt to claw back some of the millions of pounds a week its clubs are losing from playing behind closed doors. Only Leicester City voted against the initiative at a meeting on Wednesday, through their chief executive, Susan Whelan. Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, failed to join her despite arguing it placed an unfair burden on supporters.
Those wishing to watch Liverpool and Everton can subscribe to BT Sport for a £25 contract free monthly pass.
Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, suggested the broadcasters had the final say on PPV prices, but said it was a "defensible price point as we're confident in the product".
"Obviously, we think we're not the price setters, but obviously we were fully aware of the prices when we committed ourselves to this service," he added.
"The main thing is, is all fans still get to watch all Premier League matches while we're behind closed doors. We think it's a premium product. It's got the normal Premier League production values pre and post match presentations."
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
More fractious comments from a senior government figure concerning football - but this comes with a rebuke from the company that has committed hundreds of millions to the game - from the TelegraphChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:06 pmA couple of interesting threads from Simon Chadwick, the first in particular partners well with the thinking of Vysyble
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4445142017
the second looks at how UK government treats the game continues to test it's patience
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 9179284481
It always has been and continues to be so out of touch with what it means to the country, It is one of the things that worries me about an independent regulator
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 1961420800
Of course FIFA has regulations about Government intervention in the game, the ultimate sanction being suspension/expulsion from it's international competitions
BT Sport furious at Culture Secretary for saying Merseyside derby should be free-to-air
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 14, 2020
BT Sport have slapped down the Culture Secretary for suggesting the Merseyside derby should be screened on free-to-air due to tightened lockdown measures facing the city of Liverpool.
The idea was raised by Oliver Dowden as he expressed misgivings to MPs about the league's controversial £14.95 pay-per-view (PPV) plan for additional games to be shown while the crowd ban continues.
Everton against Liverpool is due to be screened on BT Sport's main channels, rather than PPV. However, with the city now facing the highest tier of coronavirus restrictions, Damian Green MP suggested there was a risk of supporters breaking lockdown rules to watch the match at other households.
Mr Dowden told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in response: “I wouldn’t accept the premise that people in Liverpool are going to breach the rules at all, but if BT are able (to make the match free to air) as a gesture that would be a great thing to do of course.”
The proposal was described as "impossible" by BT on Wednesday. “Broadcast revenue is critical to ensuring that football clubs stay financially afloat, and together we help protect the overall football ecosystem," a spokeswoman added. "It’s impossible to start applying different commercial models to the many differing and dynamic local lockdown situations.”
The Premier League, meanwhile, remains under pressure to review its plan to charge fans for other games from this weekend. No reduction was announced after Wednesday's emergency meeting to discuss 'Project Big Picture'.
Dowden said he was “not massively impressed” by the plan to sell off matches not selected for regular television coverage on BT and Sky Sports’ Box Office services at £14.95. “Actions like this jar with this idea of coming together during this time of crisis,” he said.
The world's richest league confirmed two days earlier that half of games for the rest of this month and start of next would be sold individually to viewers on Sky Sports and BT Sport's Box Office in an attempt to claw back some of the millions of pounds a week its clubs are losing from playing behind closed doors. Only Leicester City voted against the initiative at a meeting on Wednesday, through their chief executive, Susan Whelan. Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, failed to join her despite arguing it placed an unfair burden on supporters.
Those wishing to watch Liverpool and Everton can subscribe to BT Sport for a £25 contract free monthly pass.
Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, suggested the broadcasters had the final say on PPV prices, but said it was a "defensible price point as we're confident in the product".
"Obviously, we think we're not the price setters, but obviously we were fully aware of the prices when we committed ourselves to this service," he added.
"The main thing is, is all fans still get to watch all Premier League matches while we're behind closed doors. We think it's a premium product. It's got the normal Premier League production values pre and post match presentations."
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
More fractious comments from a senior government figure concerning football - but this comes with a rebuke from the company that has committed hundreds of millions to the game - from the TelegraphChester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:06 pmA couple of interesting threads from Simon Chadwick, the first in particular partners well with the thinking of Vysyble
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 4445142017
the second looks at how UK government treats the game continues to test it's patience
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 9179284481
It always has been and continues to be so out of touch with what it means to the country, It is one of the things that worries me about an independent regulator
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 1961420800
Of course FIFA has regulations about Government intervention in the game, the ultimate sanction being suspension/expulsion from it's international competitions
BT Sport furious at Culture Secretary for saying Merseyside derby should be free-to-air
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 14, 2020
BT Sport have slapped down the Culture Secretary for suggesting the Merseyside derby should be screened on free-to-air due to tightened lockdown measures facing the city of Liverpool.
The idea was raised by Oliver Dowden as he expressed misgivings to MPs about the league's controversial £14.95 pay-per-view (PPV) plan for additional games to be shown while the crowd ban continues.
Everton against Liverpool is due to be screened on BT Sport's main channels, rather than PPV. However, with the city now facing the highest tier of coronavirus restrictions, Damian Green MP suggested there was a risk of supporters breaking lockdown rules to watch the match at other households.
Mr Dowden told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in response: “I wouldn’t accept the premise that people in Liverpool are going to breach the rules at all, but if BT are able (to make the match free to air) as a gesture that would be a great thing to do of course.”
The proposal was described as "impossible" by BT on Wednesday. “Broadcast revenue is critical to ensuring that football clubs stay financially afloat, and together we help protect the overall football ecosystem," a spokeswoman added. "It’s impossible to start applying different commercial models to the many differing and dynamic local lockdown situations.”
The Premier League, meanwhile, remains under pressure to review its plan to charge fans for other games from this weekend. No reduction was announced after Wednesday's emergency meeting to discuss 'Project Big Picture'.
Dowden said he was “not massively impressed” by the plan to sell off matches not selected for regular television coverage on BT and Sky Sports’ Box Office services at £14.95. “Actions like this jar with this idea of coming together during this time of crisis,” he said.
The world's richest league confirmed two days earlier that half of games for the rest of this month and start of next would be sold individually to viewers on Sky Sports and BT Sport's Box Office in an attempt to claw back some of the millions of pounds a week its clubs are losing from playing behind closed doors. Only Leicester City voted against the initiative at a meeting on Wednesday, through their chief executive, Susan Whelan. Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, failed to join her despite arguing it placed an unfair burden on supporters.
Those wishing to watch Liverpool and Everton can subscribe to BT Sport for a £25 contract free monthly pass.
Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, suggested the broadcasters had the final say on PPV prices, but said it was a "defensible price point as we're confident in the product".
"Obviously, we think we're not the price setters, but obviously we were fully aware of the prices when we committed ourselves to this service," he added.
"The main thing is, is all fans still get to watch all Premier League matches while we're behind closed doors. We think it's a premium product. It's got the normal Premier League production values pre and post match presentations."
-
claretandy
- Posts: 4751
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 953 times
- Has Liked: 238 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
It's almost like his left wing agenda has clouded his judgment.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:20 pmDavid Conn in the Guardian still doesn't seem to realise that 25% of not very much = not very much at all and that is the only reason the EFL was offered it in the first place -
Project Big Picture power grab is shot down but plan's ugliest parts will be back
David Conn
The reshaping of English football is on hold but Liverpool’s owner is said to regard it as a win that clubs will hold a review
Wed 14 Oct 2020 22.07 BST Last modified on Wed 14 Oct 2020 22.40 BST
John Henry and Joel Glazer were not on the Premier League video meeting to promote the Project Big Picture they worked up in the US to reshape English football, or to take the flak from its shooting down by the other clubs. Despite the Premier League’s emphatic statement that the plans “will not be endorsed or pursued”, Liverpool’s owner is said to regard it as a win that the 20 clubs have committed to a strategic review, in which some of his proposals will inevitably be discussed.
Some in the EFL were also trying to look on the bright side after a fraught few days that have not cast the most flattering floodlight on the inner workings of the great game. They figure that at least the idea was surprisingly raised in the Liverpool and Manchester United plan, for a 25% sharing of the Premier League’s multibillions with the EFL, and must now be negotiated.
Others, though, were feeling that in the midst of this immediate crisis for the game, they have been left with not much more to clutch than stale air.
The stinking problem for the plan was that the gleaming idea of mending the huge gap between the two leagues 28 years after the Premier League breakaway was wrapped in the horrible idea for control by the so-called big six clubs, and that looked close to another breakaway.
The fact that Henry and Glazer’s “project” envisaged each Premier League club slicing off eight live matches per season to be sold internationally via their own streaming platforms made the aim of voting control look like a plan to carve up future rights for their own treasure chests. Liverpool, United and the other top clubs are seeing that streaming will become potentially a vast earner from the fans that their clubs’ big names and appeal have garnered around the world.
This period during the 2019-22 TV deals, that were sold for £8.6bn – the EFL’s deal is £360m over the same three years – was always likely to produce a battle from the six for a greater share next time. Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive who held the original TV distribution together for so long, ultimately presided over a surrender of some international rights share to the top six. Henry had publicly pressed the case for that.
Scudamore announced he was stepping down almost on the same day, the end of an era. Candidates for his replacement found reasons not to take on apparently one of the great administrative jobs in sport, before Richard Masters, then the league’s commercial director, was elevated and an end put to the search.
Perhaps Liverpool and United, having seen the vehement reaction against their bare-faced bid for voting control, may temper it through this strategic review and other arguments to come over the next round of money. Perhaps they will push on with the same demands. The Glazers were bold enough to buy United with £525m of borrowed money then make the club and their fans pay all the spirit-sapping costs; Henry is a billionaire with a very keen view of his assets’ potential value globally, and he won a battle over the international rights.
Even without a European breakaway threat to realistically wield, the six are not shy to remind the rest that they account for a very big bulk of the TV audience. Even if the 14, three of whom change every season, dig in and keep the arrangements as they are – and their own £100m-plus slices – the Champions League will expand from 2024 inevitably, so the participating big clubs will grow richer anyway.
But the startling difference in the power-seizing plan this time was the offer of 25% redistribution to the EFL. Since 1992, when the Football League First Division clubs broke away to keep all the satellite TV money, and left the other three divisions marooned and resentful behind, no other consolidation of power has offered more sharing with the pyramid. Hence the weird spectacle this week of the great majority of EFL clubs welcoming the plan for the easing it could provide of their endless financial struggles, even as it was generally denounced as a greedy grab by the wealthiest.
Some EFL clubs believe that prospect will stay on the table through this strategic review. But on the same day, the Premier League clubs announced a bare minimum of the £250m short-term crisis fund that the EFL chairman, Rick Parry, had been seeking: merely £20m guaranteed for League One and League Two clubs, with more available to be sought as loans.
Even at this stage, a possible, gloomy result of the review can be imagined, where some ugly parts of Henry’s plan, more power and money for the big clubs, are conceded, but none of the progressive parts.
Football’s deeply unequal, unsatisfactory and wobbly status quo has been reasserted, for now.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
the Football Today Podcast asks somewhat provocatively "Will B-Teams fix English Football"
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... h-football
https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... h-football
-
GodIsADeeJay81
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
This is bizarre, but amusing at the same time.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:01 amVenky's put another £6m in shares
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 6335312896
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I have read a lot of articles this morning about where the Premier Leagues ceremonial slaughter of Project Big Picture yesterday leaves things - this is probably the best I have see so far but still leaves out a lot of analysis about the financial offer to the EFL - from SportsProMedia.com
The project is dead but the big picture is unchanged for English soccer
A radical scheme to redesign the structures of English professional soccer, led by the EFL chairman and the owners of Liverpool and Manchester United, has been shot down on sight by the Premier League's clubs. But as the pressures of digital disruption and Covid-19 mount, realignment is coming one way or another.
Posted: October 15 2020By: Eoin Connolly
A little under a week ago, at the time of writing, clubs in English soccer’s Premier League announced a measure to temper the financial effects of empty stadiums.
Matches not chosen for broadcast under existing domestic TV deals would be available to Sky Sports and BT Sport subscribers for an additional UK£14.95 apiece. This was a departure from earlier Covid-era policy, which had seen every game screened at no additional charge in the UK, including several on free-to-air, but that had been in anticipation of a phased reopening of sports venues that now looks months away.
The fans, and the press, are not happy. Some balked at the principle of an extra cost in the middle of an economic crisis. Others suggested a closer tie-in with season tickets. Still more raised eyebrows at the price point, making unfavourable comparisons with monthly entertainment subscriptions. They argued a lower fee – say below UK£5, around the cost of a pint – might entice even casual viewers, but at this level it encouraged piracy.
Squint and you can make out the aims of the teams involved, who want to cover costs, maintain political pressure on government to allow fans to return or provide compensation, and protect the value of current and future media deals. But it could still be framed as a short-termist fix, one that worked backwards from the gap at the bottom line rather than asking what the audience would want to bear.
It was all too easy to accuse the clubs of missing something. A broader view. A wider angle. Something like that.
Then over the weekend, news broke in the Telegraph about Project Big Picture, a radical blueprint not just for the Premier League but the three tiers of the English Football League (EFL) below. The architects drawing it up in secret were the co-owners of Liverpool and Manchester United – John W Henry and Joel Glazer respectively – and the EFL chairman Rick Parry.
The details of the scheme – which came to light at a time where the EFL, with many of its clubs in dire financial straits, has been trying to negotiate a bailout package with the Premier League – have been dissected at length through the week. For clarity, we can review some here.
The Premier League would be cut from 20 clubs to 18; the professional class from 92 to 90. The EFL would receive a 25 per cent cut of future TV deals to be collectively sold by the Premier League – getting an advanced payment now in the form of a UK£250 million rescue fund. Tighter financial controls would limit runaway player payrolls. The EFL Cup and season-opening Community Shield friendly would be scrapped. A further UK£100 million gift would assuage the national governing body, the Football Association (FA), allowing funding for women’s, non-league and grassroots soccer.
With Parry playing frontman for a silent Henry and Glazer, a number of EFL clubs offered their qualified support; others their unqualified scepticism. All of that is now moot. The scheme was dead on arrival with most of the Premier League, who objected to the special voting rights it pledged to nine ‘long-term shareholders’ – those teams who have gone longest without relegation, the richest ‘big six’ among them. These included a veto on incoming owners, and the ability to set different terms on the distribution of broadcast cash.
At an emergency Zoom meeting on 14th October, all 20 teams unanimously agreed to set the proposals aside. Instead, they would ‘work collaboratively’ towards a new strategic plan, send a UK£50 million package of interest-free loans and grants the way of clubs in the third and fourth tier, and continue talks with those in the second.
For now, the rapid demise of Project Big Picture means we can look beyond the small print and back at, well, the grander scheme of things. In the absence of an independent regulator – calls for which will be renewed by a group including former FA chairman David Bernstein in a report this week – what happens next comes down to incentive and leverage. All parties seem, at least in part, to have shown their hand.
This has catalysed a debate about how English soccer is organised. A conversation about, for want of a better word, the ‘pyramid’. And a better word is needed, because the bricks in a pyramid tend not to reorder themselves of their own volition. Maybe a mountain is a closer fit – a thing to be climbed, at some effort, and whose constituent matter rises and crumbles through the greater body, even if that can take a geological age. It looks permanent but is changing all the time. Even Liverpool and Manchester United spent their time away from the summit.
That may be a clumsy and imperfect metaphor but, hey, this is a clumsy and imperfect structure. It just happens to be the one European soccer’s economy is based upon. Whether it is one that will be sustained is now an open question.
If you cannot sense any opportunism in the Project Big Picture gambit, you have not been paying much attention. The top clubs are sensitive to any hint of more power, more certainty, and the flexibility to play more games in European competition and overseas tours. For that, though, they were willing to trade a not insubstantial chunk of future revenues to pay for the upkeep of the lower leagues. Was that a one-off transaction? Or is there value for the elite in a prosperous EFL?
You could take a few guesses before getting into the goodness of anyone’s hearts. Lower-tier clubs create a broader web for talent identification and development, and deepens demand for assets in the transfer market. There is a professional team near almost every town of significance, nationwide, which is a pretty useful evangelical base.
Worth noting, in that context, a couple of the other elements kicked into Project Big Picture: UK£78 million a year for the maintenance of training grounds and stadium improvements in the EFL, and a considerable liberalisation of the player loan system. Put it all together and it carries more than a trace of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) historic relationship with the minors.
That might be an accident, despite the involvement of Boston Red Sox co-owner Henry, and his supposed preoccupation with English soccer’s foundations. It might also be an iffy portent, given Minor League Baseball’s (MiLB) rancorous ongoing contraction. Whatever the case, it was an offer lots of EFL clubs clearly preferred to the risk of oblivion.
For plenty of rights holders, the years ahead look set to bring consolidation, compression, and closed loops. Some investors will insist upon it – the EFL, incidentally, last week rebuffed a UK£375 million from TPG Capital for a 20 per cent stake, according to The Times. The realities of the emerging digital media market will be another key driver.
Think again about the perception of the Premier League’s UK£14.95 pay-per-view matches. There are two factors playing into it, irrespective of the value it actually offers. One is that English soccer’s reputation for greed precedes it. The other is that in a global market for digital content, the value of what Netflix, Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Prime Video or whoever else can offer is always relevant.
Of course, those companies hit those aggressive price points from a point of absurd scale. They achieved that through innovation, sure, and a focus on the consumer, acquisition of content, and an enticing pitch to investors. Competitors, on the other hand, are there to be co-opted, subdued, or eliminated.
Volume counts in digital media. So do control and short routes to an audience. Realignment is going to happen in more and more sports, and some will be better placed than others to do that harmoniously.
Right now, the Premier League and EFL are playing the same sport. It remains to be seen how long they can play the same game.
The project is dead but the big picture is unchanged for English soccer
A radical scheme to redesign the structures of English professional soccer, led by the EFL chairman and the owners of Liverpool and Manchester United, has been shot down on sight by the Premier League's clubs. But as the pressures of digital disruption and Covid-19 mount, realignment is coming one way or another.
Posted: October 15 2020By: Eoin Connolly
A little under a week ago, at the time of writing, clubs in English soccer’s Premier League announced a measure to temper the financial effects of empty stadiums.
Matches not chosen for broadcast under existing domestic TV deals would be available to Sky Sports and BT Sport subscribers for an additional UK£14.95 apiece. This was a departure from earlier Covid-era policy, which had seen every game screened at no additional charge in the UK, including several on free-to-air, but that had been in anticipation of a phased reopening of sports venues that now looks months away.
The fans, and the press, are not happy. Some balked at the principle of an extra cost in the middle of an economic crisis. Others suggested a closer tie-in with season tickets. Still more raised eyebrows at the price point, making unfavourable comparisons with monthly entertainment subscriptions. They argued a lower fee – say below UK£5, around the cost of a pint – might entice even casual viewers, but at this level it encouraged piracy.
Squint and you can make out the aims of the teams involved, who want to cover costs, maintain political pressure on government to allow fans to return or provide compensation, and protect the value of current and future media deals. But it could still be framed as a short-termist fix, one that worked backwards from the gap at the bottom line rather than asking what the audience would want to bear.
It was all too easy to accuse the clubs of missing something. A broader view. A wider angle. Something like that.
Then over the weekend, news broke in the Telegraph about Project Big Picture, a radical blueprint not just for the Premier League but the three tiers of the English Football League (EFL) below. The architects drawing it up in secret were the co-owners of Liverpool and Manchester United – John W Henry and Joel Glazer respectively – and the EFL chairman Rick Parry.
The details of the scheme – which came to light at a time where the EFL, with many of its clubs in dire financial straits, has been trying to negotiate a bailout package with the Premier League – have been dissected at length through the week. For clarity, we can review some here.
The Premier League would be cut from 20 clubs to 18; the professional class from 92 to 90. The EFL would receive a 25 per cent cut of future TV deals to be collectively sold by the Premier League – getting an advanced payment now in the form of a UK£250 million rescue fund. Tighter financial controls would limit runaway player payrolls. The EFL Cup and season-opening Community Shield friendly would be scrapped. A further UK£100 million gift would assuage the national governing body, the Football Association (FA), allowing funding for women’s, non-league and grassroots soccer.
With Parry playing frontman for a silent Henry and Glazer, a number of EFL clubs offered their qualified support; others their unqualified scepticism. All of that is now moot. The scheme was dead on arrival with most of the Premier League, who objected to the special voting rights it pledged to nine ‘long-term shareholders’ – those teams who have gone longest without relegation, the richest ‘big six’ among them. These included a veto on incoming owners, and the ability to set different terms on the distribution of broadcast cash.
At an emergency Zoom meeting on 14th October, all 20 teams unanimously agreed to set the proposals aside. Instead, they would ‘work collaboratively’ towards a new strategic plan, send a UK£50 million package of interest-free loans and grants the way of clubs in the third and fourth tier, and continue talks with those in the second.
For now, the rapid demise of Project Big Picture means we can look beyond the small print and back at, well, the grander scheme of things. In the absence of an independent regulator – calls for which will be renewed by a group including former FA chairman David Bernstein in a report this week – what happens next comes down to incentive and leverage. All parties seem, at least in part, to have shown their hand.
This has catalysed a debate about how English soccer is organised. A conversation about, for want of a better word, the ‘pyramid’. And a better word is needed, because the bricks in a pyramid tend not to reorder themselves of their own volition. Maybe a mountain is a closer fit – a thing to be climbed, at some effort, and whose constituent matter rises and crumbles through the greater body, even if that can take a geological age. It looks permanent but is changing all the time. Even Liverpool and Manchester United spent their time away from the summit.
That may be a clumsy and imperfect metaphor but, hey, this is a clumsy and imperfect structure. It just happens to be the one European soccer’s economy is based upon. Whether it is one that will be sustained is now an open question.
If you cannot sense any opportunism in the Project Big Picture gambit, you have not been paying much attention. The top clubs are sensitive to any hint of more power, more certainty, and the flexibility to play more games in European competition and overseas tours. For that, though, they were willing to trade a not insubstantial chunk of future revenues to pay for the upkeep of the lower leagues. Was that a one-off transaction? Or is there value for the elite in a prosperous EFL?
You could take a few guesses before getting into the goodness of anyone’s hearts. Lower-tier clubs create a broader web for talent identification and development, and deepens demand for assets in the transfer market. There is a professional team near almost every town of significance, nationwide, which is a pretty useful evangelical base.
Worth noting, in that context, a couple of the other elements kicked into Project Big Picture: UK£78 million a year for the maintenance of training grounds and stadium improvements in the EFL, and a considerable liberalisation of the player loan system. Put it all together and it carries more than a trace of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) historic relationship with the minors.
That might be an accident, despite the involvement of Boston Red Sox co-owner Henry, and his supposed preoccupation with English soccer’s foundations. It might also be an iffy portent, given Minor League Baseball’s (MiLB) rancorous ongoing contraction. Whatever the case, it was an offer lots of EFL clubs clearly preferred to the risk of oblivion.
For plenty of rights holders, the years ahead look set to bring consolidation, compression, and closed loops. Some investors will insist upon it – the EFL, incidentally, last week rebuffed a UK£375 million from TPG Capital for a 20 per cent stake, according to The Times. The realities of the emerging digital media market will be another key driver.
Think again about the perception of the Premier League’s UK£14.95 pay-per-view matches. There are two factors playing into it, irrespective of the value it actually offers. One is that English soccer’s reputation for greed precedes it. The other is that in a global market for digital content, the value of what Netflix, Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Prime Video or whoever else can offer is always relevant.
Of course, those companies hit those aggressive price points from a point of absurd scale. They achieved that through innovation, sure, and a focus on the consumer, acquisition of content, and an enticing pitch to investors. Competitors, on the other hand, are there to be co-opted, subdued, or eliminated.
Volume counts in digital media. So do control and short routes to an audience. Realignment is going to happen in more and more sports, and some will be better placed than others to do that harmoniously.
Right now, the Premier League and EFL are playing the same sport. It remains to be seen how long they can play the same game.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
I missed this yesterday from John Nicholson - as ever, I cannot say I agree with him on everything, and I think there are some pretty basic fundamental flaws in some of these but what do you think from Football365.com
Ten of the sanest mad ideas for transforming football
Date published: Wednesday 14th October 2020 2:24
Here are some ideas that would ensure football is fair and fantastic, courtesy of John Nicholson.
We can’t trust football and football clubs to run themselves with any degree of sanity or unselfishness. So here are some ideas that would ensure football is fair and fantastic.
They stop financial mismanagement. They’d effectively stop oligarchs and other ne’er do wells owning clubs. They make it impossible to leverage an owner’s money to dominate. They prevent wage and transfer inflation. They mean no-one can buy success. They make training, recruitment and management all-important. They allow progress through the leagues and for each league to be competitive. They ensure every club is sustainable and that the pyramid functions properly.
These are so sane, you’ll think they’re mad. Here we go.
1) All clubs have to be run on a break-even/not-for-profit basis.
2) Any excess profits to be invested in local communities selected by local mandate.
3) To negate financial leverage, both a club wage cap and an individual maximum wage cap to be set at a level affordable by the poorest club in each league, to be decided each year by an independent financial body.
4) Sponsorship income capped.
5) TV rights income divided and distributed equally between all clubs in the leagues.
6) Any player, family, business or relations found in receipt of money or goods to get around maximum wage rules are banned from playing professionally.
7) All capital investment for clubs is paid from an independently operated FA bank paid into by all clubs as a percentage of turnover.
8) Abolition of transfer fees, replaced with rolling single-year contracts that have to be honoured.
9) All clubs are at least 51% fan-owned.
10) All owners must have a year’s operating income on deposit at all times.
Ten of the sanest mad ideas for transforming football
Date published: Wednesday 14th October 2020 2:24
Here are some ideas that would ensure football is fair and fantastic, courtesy of John Nicholson.
We can’t trust football and football clubs to run themselves with any degree of sanity or unselfishness. So here are some ideas that would ensure football is fair and fantastic.
They stop financial mismanagement. They’d effectively stop oligarchs and other ne’er do wells owning clubs. They make it impossible to leverage an owner’s money to dominate. They prevent wage and transfer inflation. They mean no-one can buy success. They make training, recruitment and management all-important. They allow progress through the leagues and for each league to be competitive. They ensure every club is sustainable and that the pyramid functions properly.
These are so sane, you’ll think they’re mad. Here we go.
1) All clubs have to be run on a break-even/not-for-profit basis.
2) Any excess profits to be invested in local communities selected by local mandate.
3) To negate financial leverage, both a club wage cap and an individual maximum wage cap to be set at a level affordable by the poorest club in each league, to be decided each year by an independent financial body.
4) Sponsorship income capped.
5) TV rights income divided and distributed equally between all clubs in the leagues.
6) Any player, family, business or relations found in receipt of money or goods to get around maximum wage rules are banned from playing professionally.
7) All capital investment for clubs is paid from an independently operated FA bank paid into by all clubs as a percentage of turnover.
8) Abolition of transfer fees, replaced with rolling single-year contracts that have to be honoured.
9) All clubs are at least 51% fan-owned.
10) All owners must have a year’s operating income on deposit at all times.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Suggestions that it was Mediapro's Chinese partners that were pushing for a renegotiation of French Ligue Domestic Broadcast rights.
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 7767149568
This is an important point for us all to remember - just because a company is European based it doesn't mean that it is not influenced/backed by parties from countries suffering from economic upheaval or greatly influenced by political changes of direction at home.
https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 0908749824
and once again you have to suspect a little geo-politicking courtesy of a government position on a different issue
-
GodIsADeeJay81
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
1- I don't think clubs should be allowed to run up massive losses and have massive debts that never seem to shrink.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:56 amI missed this yesterday from John Nicholson - as ever, I cannot say I agree with him on everything, and I think there are some pretty basic fundamental flaws in some of these but what do you think from Football365.com
Ten of the sanest mad ideas for transforming football
Date published: Wednesday 14th October 2020 2:24
Here are some ideas that would ensure football is fair and fantastic, courtesy of John Nicholson.
We can’t trust football and football clubs to run themselves with any degree of sanity or unselfishness. So here are some ideas that would ensure football is fair and fantastic.
They stop financial mismanagement. They’d effectively stop oligarchs and other ne’er do wells owning clubs. They make it impossible to leverage an owner’s money to dominate. They prevent wage and transfer inflation. They mean no-one can buy success. They make training, recruitment and management all-important. They allow progress through the leagues and for each league to be competitive. They ensure every club is sustainable and that the pyramid functions properly.
These are so sane, you’ll think they’re mad. Here we go.
1) All clubs have to be run on a break-even/not-for-profit basis.
2) Any excess profits to be invested in local communities selected by local mandate.
3) To negate financial leverage, both a club wage cap and an individual maximum wage cap to be set at a level affordable by the poorest club in each league, to be decided each year by an independent financial body.
4) Sponsorship income capped.
5) TV rights income divided and distributed equally between all clubs in the leagues.
6) Any player, family, business or relations found in receipt of money or goods to get around maximum wage rules are banned from playing professionally.
7) All capital investment for clubs is paid from an independently operated FA bank paid into by all clubs as a percentage of turnover.
8) Abolition of transfer fees, replaced with rolling single-year contracts that have to be honoured.
9) All clubs are at least 51% fan-owned.
10) All owners must have a year’s operating income on deposit at all times.
2- how do they grow their business if any excess profits are taken away?
3- wage caps I agree with, but not individual players.
I think MLS allows for clubs to have a star player who can earn more etc.
4- not really fair, maybe improve how it's monitored to stop a clubs owner sponsoring club via another business they own
5- like this one.
6- did anyone get banned after Rangers were found to be doing something odd like this?
7- I think I understand this, but most people wouldn't trust the FA to organise a drinking session in a brewery..
8- this is a no go for me.
9- seems to work in Germany and Spain.
10- this one I like quite a lot, but tweaked a little.
More needs to be done about agents and the money they get.
Mendes got paid for a deal in which he represented no one..
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
You have got to admit that he has a talent for establishing connections and making introductions though - whether you think he his the intergalactic champion parasite or notGodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:57 pm
More needs to be done about agents and the money they get.
Mendes got paid for a deal in which he represented no one..
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Just what is going on with the leaders of our footballing authorities - Greg Clarke is dumped in the deep end by Rick Parry as Richard Masters emerges unscathed by doing right by his members, though one wonders why he didn't out them at the time - from the Telegraph
Exclusive: FA chief Greg Clarke 'proposed Premier League 2 and B teams' in explosive leaked document
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 15, 2020
Football Association chairman Greg Clarke has been accused of floating the formation of a 'Premier League 2' and introducing B-teams into the Football League in secret talks with leading clubs.
The Daily Telegraph has seen a copy of a discussion paper apparently part-produced by Clarke ahead of a meeting in February with Liverpool, Manchester United and Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman. The proposals emerging from these talks also appear to include a plan to completely overhaul the EFL to combine Leagues One and Two with the three top non-league competitions.
In an explosive new twist to the story that has rocked English football, Rick Parry, the English Football League chairman, is understood to have shared the early draft of Project Big Picture with EFL club executives suggesting it was Clarke that had instigated the controversial proposals.
In an email seen by The Telegraph, Parry appeared to be at pains to clarify his version of events after the FA played a major role in torpedoing PBP following the clandestine plan being unearthed by The Telegraph on Sunday. On Tuesday, Clarke sparked incredulity at Liverpool and Manchester United by publishing a letter accusing the two teams of plotting a breakaway from the Premier League. In a letter to the FA council, Clarke did not specify the date at which talks turned to a breakaway, instead saying it was in “late Spring”. Clarke maintained in his letter that at the mention of a breakaway, he walked away from discussions.
However, in a new email to his EFL colleagues seen by The Daily Telegraph, Parry alleges it was Clarke who "initiated this process" for a major overhaul, with proposals so radical that the EFL would never have been able to accept.
To prove his point, the EFL chief attached a detailed "discussion" document which Clarke had apparently been involved in. Parry goes on to claim Clarke invited him to preliminary talks in February with Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman, and representatives of Liverpool and Manchester United.
Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, was also invited to participate by Bruce but declined, Parry adds. It is understood that Masters refused to countenance any attendance at an informal meeting that was not officially-constituted and would not include all 20 Premier League shareholders. Masters had also seen no paperwork related to the matter.
An attached document which Parry suggests Clarke authored says: "The devil is in the detail and we need to work through objectives and possible solutions before beginning the herculean task of reshaping English football for the challenges and opportunities ahead."
However, according to the document, "Project Big Picture would seek to restructure the English football pyramid and its leagues and competition" via a series of radical proposals:
- "Elite club football in England is reconfigured to two divisions of 18 clubs nominally called Premier League 1 and 2", he says, "with the objectives of limiting the number of games and establishing common governance, financial regulation and media marketing".
The EFL is "reconfigured to combine Leagues One and Two together with the National League and National League North and South and comprising five divisions".
- The League Cup and FA Cup replays are "discontinued".
Solidarity payments are "reshaped to encourage financial stability in the new EFL and Elite Player Development (EPPP) is limited to Premier League 1 & 2".
- The establishment of Premier League B teams within the EFL is "investigated with the aim of providing truly competitive football to elite young talent and replace the current ad hoc loan system".
- The FA is reshaped to focus "all of its funds on grass roots football and the women’s game"
- The FA Board becomes the forum "where the English game is governed and top level stakeholder representatives attend". "However, stakeholder subsidiarity is maintained with power to run and regulate competitions retained by the leagues."
Parry said in his email to colleagues that following Clarke’s critical letter to the FA Council on PBP, "I think it is necessary to clarify a few points".
"First of all, it was Greg who initiated this process," he wrote. He added that "in the interests of transparency" he was showing them details of document "that Greg produced". "You’ll see that the document highlights the role that the major clubs should play in bringing about change given the alternatives that are open to them," he writes. "He also raises a number of contentious issues such as Premier League Two, B Teams and the exclusion of League One and League Two clubs from EPPP. For the avoidance of any doubt this is not to say that Greg was personally in favour of these ideas but that they warranted discussion."
Parry concludes his letter by saying: "I made it clear from the outset that they some of these were absolute non-starters from an EFL point of view and it is clear that they did not find their way into the Project Big Picture proposal."
"They were firmly rejected by Liverpool and Manchester United which does confirm their understanding of the importance of the pyramid," he adds.
In response to the email, Clarke confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that he was "part of the early discussions which involved a number of Premier League clubs, with the knowledge of senior FA members".
"It is an important part of my job to work together with key stakeholders across the game to discuss and evaluate potential improvements to the structure of English football that would have a positive long-term effect at every level of the game," he said in a statement. "The paper captures a summary of what areas and issues were discussed at an early meeting. I encouraged Premier League and EFL involvement in these discussions for greater transparency across the game. The EFL joined but the Premier League had an interim chair at the time, and the acting CEO made the decision to not attend. Which is understandable given the outbreak of Covid-19 and their focus on league matters."
Details of the alleged memo from Clarke are also likely to be raised as clubs across the EFL tiers discuss whether to accept a new £50 million loans and grants offer from the Premier League for Leagues One and Two only.
That offer was issued after Clarke had played a major role in ensuring proposals led by Parry, United and Liverpool for sweeping changes across football were dead in the water at a meeting of top-tier shareholders on Wednesday.
There had been 18 different drafts of PBP before it was vetoed by the Premier League. As disclosed by The Daily Telegraph on Sunday, the most lucrative sports league in the world would have been reduced to 18 teams, and controlling power would be in the hands of the biggest clubs. In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League's inception in 1992, there would have been a £250m rescue package for the English Football League to see them through the Covid crisis. The Premier League has now announced plans to review the "future structures and financing of English football".
Exclusive: FA chief Greg Clarke 'proposed Premier League 2 and B teams' in explosive leaked document
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 15, 2020
Football Association chairman Greg Clarke has been accused of floating the formation of a 'Premier League 2' and introducing B-teams into the Football League in secret talks with leading clubs.
The Daily Telegraph has seen a copy of a discussion paper apparently part-produced by Clarke ahead of a meeting in February with Liverpool, Manchester United and Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman. The proposals emerging from these talks also appear to include a plan to completely overhaul the EFL to combine Leagues One and Two with the three top non-league competitions.
In an explosive new twist to the story that has rocked English football, Rick Parry, the English Football League chairman, is understood to have shared the early draft of Project Big Picture with EFL club executives suggesting it was Clarke that had instigated the controversial proposals.
In an email seen by The Telegraph, Parry appeared to be at pains to clarify his version of events after the FA played a major role in torpedoing PBP following the clandestine plan being unearthed by The Telegraph on Sunday. On Tuesday, Clarke sparked incredulity at Liverpool and Manchester United by publishing a letter accusing the two teams of plotting a breakaway from the Premier League. In a letter to the FA council, Clarke did not specify the date at which talks turned to a breakaway, instead saying it was in “late Spring”. Clarke maintained in his letter that at the mention of a breakaway, he walked away from discussions.
However, in a new email to his EFL colleagues seen by The Daily Telegraph, Parry alleges it was Clarke who "initiated this process" for a major overhaul, with proposals so radical that the EFL would never have been able to accept.
To prove his point, the EFL chief attached a detailed "discussion" document which Clarke had apparently been involved in. Parry goes on to claim Clarke invited him to preliminary talks in February with Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman, and representatives of Liverpool and Manchester United.
Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, was also invited to participate by Bruce but declined, Parry adds. It is understood that Masters refused to countenance any attendance at an informal meeting that was not officially-constituted and would not include all 20 Premier League shareholders. Masters had also seen no paperwork related to the matter.
An attached document which Parry suggests Clarke authored says: "The devil is in the detail and we need to work through objectives and possible solutions before beginning the herculean task of reshaping English football for the challenges and opportunities ahead."
However, according to the document, "Project Big Picture would seek to restructure the English football pyramid and its leagues and competition" via a series of radical proposals:
- "Elite club football in England is reconfigured to two divisions of 18 clubs nominally called Premier League 1 and 2", he says, "with the objectives of limiting the number of games and establishing common governance, financial regulation and media marketing".
The EFL is "reconfigured to combine Leagues One and Two together with the National League and National League North and South and comprising five divisions".
- The League Cup and FA Cup replays are "discontinued".
Solidarity payments are "reshaped to encourage financial stability in the new EFL and Elite Player Development (EPPP) is limited to Premier League 1 & 2".
- The establishment of Premier League B teams within the EFL is "investigated with the aim of providing truly competitive football to elite young talent and replace the current ad hoc loan system".
- The FA is reshaped to focus "all of its funds on grass roots football and the women’s game"
- The FA Board becomes the forum "where the English game is governed and top level stakeholder representatives attend". "However, stakeholder subsidiarity is maintained with power to run and regulate competitions retained by the leagues."
Parry said in his email to colleagues that following Clarke’s critical letter to the FA Council on PBP, "I think it is necessary to clarify a few points".
"First of all, it was Greg who initiated this process," he wrote. He added that "in the interests of transparency" he was showing them details of document "that Greg produced". "You’ll see that the document highlights the role that the major clubs should play in bringing about change given the alternatives that are open to them," he writes. "He also raises a number of contentious issues such as Premier League Two, B Teams and the exclusion of League One and League Two clubs from EPPP. For the avoidance of any doubt this is not to say that Greg was personally in favour of these ideas but that they warranted discussion."
Parry concludes his letter by saying: "I made it clear from the outset that they some of these were absolute non-starters from an EFL point of view and it is clear that they did not find their way into the Project Big Picture proposal."
"They were firmly rejected by Liverpool and Manchester United which does confirm their understanding of the importance of the pyramid," he adds.
In response to the email, Clarke confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that he was "part of the early discussions which involved a number of Premier League clubs, with the knowledge of senior FA members".
"It is an important part of my job to work together with key stakeholders across the game to discuss and evaluate potential improvements to the structure of English football that would have a positive long-term effect at every level of the game," he said in a statement. "The paper captures a summary of what areas and issues were discussed at an early meeting. I encouraged Premier League and EFL involvement in these discussions for greater transparency across the game. The EFL joined but the Premier League had an interim chair at the time, and the acting CEO made the decision to not attend. Which is understandable given the outbreak of Covid-19 and their focus on league matters."
Details of the alleged memo from Clarke are also likely to be raised as clubs across the EFL tiers discuss whether to accept a new £50 million loans and grants offer from the Premier League for Leagues One and Two only.
That offer was issued after Clarke had played a major role in ensuring proposals led by Parry, United and Liverpool for sweeping changes across football were dead in the water at a meeting of top-tier shareholders on Wednesday.
There had been 18 different drafts of PBP before it was vetoed by the Premier League. As disclosed by The Daily Telegraph on Sunday, the most lucrative sports league in the world would have been reduced to 18 teams, and controlling power would be in the hands of the biggest clubs. In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League's inception in 1992, there would have been a £250m rescue package for the English Football League to see them through the Covid crisis. The Premier League has now announced plans to review the "future structures and financing of English football".
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
More detail on that Greg Clarke revelation and that discussion paper, including a statement from Clarke this afternoon
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1316771648088018945
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1316771648088018945
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Derby fresh from mortgaging Pride Park join the list of clubs borrowing money from Michael Dell - it is secured against the training ground
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 4148145153
the full filing of the charge can be found here https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 4148145153
the full filing of the charge can be found here https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
This user liked this post: The esk
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
[quote=GodIsADeeJay81 post_id=1396890 time=1602763023 user_id=4229
More needs to be done about agents and the money they get.
Mendes got paid for a deal in which he represented no one..
[/quote]
Some further surprising revelations about that Silva transfer to Wolves - that much vaunted release fee appears incorrect - only Euro10m in reality
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 0440253443
More needs to be done about agents and the money they get.
Mendes got paid for a deal in which he represented no one..
[/quote]
Some further surprising revelations about that Silva transfer to Wolves - that much vaunted release fee appears incorrect - only Euro10m in reality
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 0440253443
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Surprised that it has taken till now for EFL clubs (and it is only some) to realise that Project Big Picture's promise of 25% of Premier League broadcast revenues, doesn;t actually ad up to much - from the Mail
'If it was in our interests why skulk around and plan in secret? It stinks': Furious EFL clubs say they were misled into supporting Project Big Picture with -
- Premier League's 25 per cent revenue claim including some of their OWN money
- EFL clubs were told the Project Big Picture (PBP) would be beneficial for them
- Rick Parry said they'd be financially better off despite no specific promises
- Most club owners in the EFL have had zero sight of the detailed PBP workings
By NICK HARRIS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:44, 17 October 2020 | UPDATED: 22:52, 17 October 2020
An angry group of EFL chairmen have told The Mail on Sunday they believe clubs in their divisions were misled into supporting the ‘Project Big Picture’ restructuring of English football drawn up by Liverpool and Manchester United.
A headline promise in the proposal — already scrapped but likely to return in an altered format — suggested the 72 EFL clubs would receive 25 per cent of all future Premier League revenues, or £750 million a year from 2022 onwards.
They currently split just over £400m, dished out via parachute cash, solidarity payments and academy grants.
But The Mail on Sunday has obtained a copy of the latest draft of the Project Big Picture (PBP) plans, and it appears to overstate Premier League revenues from overseas TV deals from 2022, at £1.4 billion a year.
The same draft proposes a reduction in Premier League clubs from 20 to 18, and that each club can sell eight games per seasons direct to overseas fans, or 144 in total.
Hence, the notion that overseas TV revenues will rise from £1.2bn a year now (with all 380 games per season in the overseas package) to £1.4bn in 2022 (when there will be 162 games in the package from a reduced total of 306) seems ridiculous.
Logically that 162-game main overseas rights package should be worth dramatically less than £1.2bn 380-game package now.
But the PBP architects are understood to feel premium content will retain value.
‘When you’re letting the Premier League clubs sell a load of games themselves in foreign markets it’s clear the value of the rest of the games in the overseas deal will be diminished,’ says Andy Holt, chairman of League One Accrington Stanley. ‘This whole PBP stinks. The people who designed it claim they’re doing it for the good of the game, so why skulk around and plan in secret?
‘If the intentions are honourable and they want to help, then why not be open and transparent from the start, tell people they’re going to make proposals — some of which will go down well and others won’t — and have an open conversation. The fact they didn’t speaks volumes.’
A second owner-chairman from a lower-division club told the MoS: ‘This looks like a grab by the six biggest beasts who would, in effect, have become all powerful.
‘All we’ve been getting is private briefings from the EFL that it’s in our interests to support it. But we have not actually been shown any detail.’
Most club owners in the EFL have had zero sight of the detailed PBP workings. The plan, which offers a Covid-19 bailout of £250m to EFL clubs plus 25 per cent of future Premier League revenues as headline details, has not been circulated.
‘You do have to wonder why EFL chairman Rick Parry has been pushing this,’ said another club owner.
‘Yes, it gets the clubs out of what we hope will be a short-term revenue hole. But at what greater cost in the future?’
The PBP document forecasts Premier League domestic TV revenue will rise by almost £200m by 2022 at a time when most analysts feel it will fall or stay flat.
Sources say the rise actually includes future EFL TV money. This again makes a mockery of the 25 per cent of PL revenue claim; in fact that 25 per cent includes some of the EFL’s own money.
Sources stress EFL clubs have never, at any point, been promised specific increases in revenue, only that Parry believes they would be financially better off under PBP in the near future.
'If it was in our interests why skulk around and plan in secret? It stinks': Furious EFL clubs say they were misled into supporting Project Big Picture with -
- Premier League's 25 per cent revenue claim including some of their OWN money
- EFL clubs were told the Project Big Picture (PBP) would be beneficial for them
- Rick Parry said they'd be financially better off despite no specific promises
- Most club owners in the EFL have had zero sight of the detailed PBP workings
By NICK HARRIS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:44, 17 October 2020 | UPDATED: 22:52, 17 October 2020
An angry group of EFL chairmen have told The Mail on Sunday they believe clubs in their divisions were misled into supporting the ‘Project Big Picture’ restructuring of English football drawn up by Liverpool and Manchester United.
A headline promise in the proposal — already scrapped but likely to return in an altered format — suggested the 72 EFL clubs would receive 25 per cent of all future Premier League revenues, or £750 million a year from 2022 onwards.
They currently split just over £400m, dished out via parachute cash, solidarity payments and academy grants.
But The Mail on Sunday has obtained a copy of the latest draft of the Project Big Picture (PBP) plans, and it appears to overstate Premier League revenues from overseas TV deals from 2022, at £1.4 billion a year.
The same draft proposes a reduction in Premier League clubs from 20 to 18, and that each club can sell eight games per seasons direct to overseas fans, or 144 in total.
Hence, the notion that overseas TV revenues will rise from £1.2bn a year now (with all 380 games per season in the overseas package) to £1.4bn in 2022 (when there will be 162 games in the package from a reduced total of 306) seems ridiculous.
Logically that 162-game main overseas rights package should be worth dramatically less than £1.2bn 380-game package now.
But the PBP architects are understood to feel premium content will retain value.
‘When you’re letting the Premier League clubs sell a load of games themselves in foreign markets it’s clear the value of the rest of the games in the overseas deal will be diminished,’ says Andy Holt, chairman of League One Accrington Stanley. ‘This whole PBP stinks. The people who designed it claim they’re doing it for the good of the game, so why skulk around and plan in secret?
‘If the intentions are honourable and they want to help, then why not be open and transparent from the start, tell people they’re going to make proposals — some of which will go down well and others won’t — and have an open conversation. The fact they didn’t speaks volumes.’
A second owner-chairman from a lower-division club told the MoS: ‘This looks like a grab by the six biggest beasts who would, in effect, have become all powerful.
‘All we’ve been getting is private briefings from the EFL that it’s in our interests to support it. But we have not actually been shown any detail.’
Most club owners in the EFL have had zero sight of the detailed PBP workings. The plan, which offers a Covid-19 bailout of £250m to EFL clubs plus 25 per cent of future Premier League revenues as headline details, has not been circulated.
‘You do have to wonder why EFL chairman Rick Parry has been pushing this,’ said another club owner.
‘Yes, it gets the clubs out of what we hope will be a short-term revenue hole. But at what greater cost in the future?’
The PBP document forecasts Premier League domestic TV revenue will rise by almost £200m by 2022 at a time when most analysts feel it will fall or stay flat.
Sources say the rise actually includes future EFL TV money. This again makes a mockery of the 25 per cent of PL revenue claim; in fact that 25 per cent includes some of the EFL’s own money.
Sources stress EFL clubs have never, at any point, been promised specific increases in revenue, only that Parry believes they would be financially better off under PBP in the near future.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Mail with some (very extreme) calculations of what those overseas rights for 8 games could mean for the big clubs
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... osals.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... osals.html
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Reports suggest tha tthe French Ligue are considering terminating their contract with Mediapro - from SportsProMedia.com
LFP ready to rip up Mediapro TV rights contract
French soccer body considers other broadcasters for Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 matches.
Posted: October 16 2020By: Ed Dixon
- Mediapro missed second €172m rights fee payment; LFP rejected request for delay
- Spanish media agency has been looking to renegotiate deal
- BeIN Sports and Canal+ possible alternatives for showing games
French soccer’s Professional Football League (LFP) is prepared to scrap its domestic broadcast contract with Mediapro should the Spanish media agency fail to make its second rights fee payment, according to an email seen by the AFP.
The LFP is only months into its four-year partnership with Mediapro, which is paying €780 million (US$913 million) per season for top-flight Ligue 1 rights and an annual €34 million (US$39.9 million) to show the second-tier Ligue 2.
But Mediapro missed its latest instalment after the LFP rejected the company’s request for more time to make the €172 million (US$201 million) payment, which had been due by 5th October.
With no breakthrough between the LFP and Mediapro over the payment, the French soccer body is prepared to seek alternative agreements with other broadcasters.
The move was confirmed in an email to clubs sent by LFP chief executive Arnaud Rouger and seen by the AFP.
‘We have given them [Mediapro] formal notice to settle the deadlines of 1st and 5th October,’ it read.
‘Either a favourable outcome is found with Mediapro, or not, and it will be necessary to envisage the contract being taken over by other operators.’
One option could be Qatar’s BeIN Sports, which currently has a smaller rights package for French club soccer. Domestic broadcaster Canal+, which showed the bulk of Ligue 1 matches prior to the LFP’s agreement with Mediapro and BeIN, is another possible destination.
Trouble was already brewing after Jaume Roures, Mediapro’s chief executive, told L’Equipe that the company was looking to renegotiate its broadcast partnership with the LFP, claiming that the value of the deal is being adversely impacted by Covid-19.
L’Equipe later reported that the LFP was looking to take out a bank loan so that Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs received their broadcast payments by 17th October.
LFP ready to rip up Mediapro TV rights contract
French soccer body considers other broadcasters for Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 matches.
Posted: October 16 2020By: Ed Dixon
- Mediapro missed second €172m rights fee payment; LFP rejected request for delay
- Spanish media agency has been looking to renegotiate deal
- BeIN Sports and Canal+ possible alternatives for showing games
French soccer’s Professional Football League (LFP) is prepared to scrap its domestic broadcast contract with Mediapro should the Spanish media agency fail to make its second rights fee payment, according to an email seen by the AFP.
The LFP is only months into its four-year partnership with Mediapro, which is paying €780 million (US$913 million) per season for top-flight Ligue 1 rights and an annual €34 million (US$39.9 million) to show the second-tier Ligue 2.
But Mediapro missed its latest instalment after the LFP rejected the company’s request for more time to make the €172 million (US$201 million) payment, which had been due by 5th October.
With no breakthrough between the LFP and Mediapro over the payment, the French soccer body is prepared to seek alternative agreements with other broadcasters.
The move was confirmed in an email to clubs sent by LFP chief executive Arnaud Rouger and seen by the AFP.
‘We have given them [Mediapro] formal notice to settle the deadlines of 1st and 5th October,’ it read.
‘Either a favourable outcome is found with Mediapro, or not, and it will be necessary to envisage the contract being taken over by other operators.’
One option could be Qatar’s BeIN Sports, which currently has a smaller rights package for French club soccer. Domestic broadcaster Canal+, which showed the bulk of Ligue 1 matches prior to the LFP’s agreement with Mediapro and BeIN, is another possible destination.
Trouble was already brewing after Jaume Roures, Mediapro’s chief executive, told L’Equipe that the company was looking to renegotiate its broadcast partnership with the LFP, claiming that the value of the deal is being adversely impacted by Covid-19.
L’Equipe later reported that the LFP was looking to take out a bank loan so that Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs received their broadcast payments by 17th October.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Sam Wallace - who broke Project Big Picture in the Telegraph around this time last Sunday - with a piece describing what he believes was the major misunderstanding of it it's authors - remember Rick Parry spent days espousing on John Henry being a student of English Football History and how he respected it - respected it so much it scared him to make sure it could never be repeated for his club
Project Big Picture's biggest mistake was its misunderstanding of the history of the game
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 18, 2020
It had long since dawned on the rest of the Premier League, in the days that followed Project Big Picture’s crash landing in the consciousness of English football, that this, above all, represented an end point of sorts for a league competition that had existed continuously since 1888.
That was the birth of the Football League which then took 104 years, the establishment of the national grid, the invention of television and the repurposing of Andy Gray to issue forth the Premier League. Here, a further 28 years later was the end of all that. Project Big Picture (PBP) was a wrapping up of the dwindling democracy of the football pyramid – already skewed by the Premier League’s immense wealth advantage - to a kind of privately-run event.
When the 20 clubs convened on Wednesday’s Premier League shareholders’ call that was the question: is this how it ends? After 132 years of the lives of a myriad of clubs rising and falling and rising again, finally the music stops and the status quo is established in perpetuity. Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and three fortunate interchangeable others – who can conveniently be outvoted – running football forever.
A strange concept when one looks at the wider picture of a competition that has been a constant since before the invention of the modern bicycle tyre or the birth of Charlie Chaplin. In that first season, 1888-1889, Preston North End were English champions and they are still here now living within their means in the Championship. Never once a Premier League member, and so never a parachute payment beneficiary, Preston are testament to how fortunes can fluctuate, although such fluctuation was what PBP sought to eliminate.
PBP did not offer more money for the biggest clubs – in fact that was the least it wanted. The modest price it demanded from those outside the golden ropes of the “long-term shareholders” denied the special voting rights was this: it wanted their souls. It was not enough to be able to beat the rest of the Premier League, the elite wanted to decide who owned them too. They wanted to sack Premier League chief executives, amend broadcast contracts, change contracts, approve contracts. They wanted to reserve the right to change the bountiful offering they had made to others and secure the by-no-means-sinister requirement to “alter in a material way the nature of the competition”.
For the other clubs reading the PBP proposals revealed by the Daily Telegraph, it was hard to decide which was the lesser of the two indignities: having their money given away or their control taken away.
It should never have been a choice for the clubs that map the industrial past of England and Wales, to live on their knees or, in some cases, die on their feet. The revenue-sharing proposed in PBP in concept, if not quite in execution, was exceptional for the time but it is a measure of the desperation some feel that it could be accepted by so many in the EFL in return for subjugation. That is a stain on all the game, Premier League included. PBP without special voting rights is the basis for a discussion. With those voting rights, English football would be reliving the consequences of the great coronavirus financial panic of 2020 for the next 100 years.
No-one can doubt that a glimpse of the future has been afforded. The biggest clubs will want to play a full part in whatever the expanded Champions League looks like post-2024 when the new cycle of broadcast rights are negotiated. By then a version of PBP will have been brought back to the table, perhaps with those special voting rights watered down to include just oversight over long term, strategic decisions rather than selecting competitors’ new owners or changing the number of substitutes permitted. As for the current 18th draft, it was fatally flawed.
Liverpool and United put their name to PBP. In the white heat of disclosure, other club executives who had played smaller parts reversed quietly back into the proverbial undergrowth, Homer Simpson-style. They had lost their nerve at the backlash to a proposal that was simply unbalanced. PBP wanted to confer on its masters the right to veto new owners. It wanted to impose the much stricter Uefa financial fair play rules that would limit a new owner – assuming he or she could get themselves approved – to little more than £10 million of investment annually rather than the current £35 million.
It wanted to insist newly-promoted teams banked £25 million per year for their first two seasons to mitigate against relegation in a game where there would be no parachute payments. It wanted a 25 per cent of the calculation for a club’s earnings to be based on their average position over the last three seasons, reducing, at a strike, the ability of newly-promoted clubs to compete. There is a table on the final page of the 18th PBP draft that shows annual payments for a newly-promoted team finishing 17th in an 18-team league. It is £48.2 million an equity ratio of 1:3.7 compared to the top-earning club on £179 million.
What makes the Premier League what it is? What is the essential ingredient that convinces broadcasters and central sponsors to pay in excess of £3 billion annually for the privilege? What indeed is so unique that the authors of PBP confidently predict a ten per cent upturn when the next broadcast rights cycle starts in 2022-2023? It certainly has much to do with the Super Sundays and the no less marvellous Mondays when the likes of United, Liverpool, City and the rest clash with all their superstar names and managerial grudges.
But it is mostly a delicate competitive balance. Aston Villa 7, Liverpool 2. Or Manchester United 1, Tottenham Hotspur 6. Or Leicester City, Premier League champions 2015-2016. It is the stupendous shock factor that is still there every week, the results that represent the most extraordinary plotline in a digital world of unlimited crime dramas and CGI movie franchises straight to your set-top box. That is the money-maker. The competitive element would not disappear immediately under PBP because all dictatorships take time to filter their way through but it would come slowly, inevitably, atrophying every branch and stork of the league.
The control of youth development. Retrospective subsidies for stadium-building. Eight games sold independently by clubs in the international market. Rather than announcing the new totalitarian state on its first page, the defeat of the Premier League by PBP is there in the cumulative small details. It is no surprise that the vast majority of the EFL grasped it so willingly because when you have nothing left to lose then what harm is there in handing over another club’s democratic vote? For Rick Parry, the EFL chairman, and particularly those clubs in the death grip of Championship overspending, it was not just a rope tossed to them in a storm-tossed sea. It was a full lifeboat rescue followed by a five-star luxury cruise.
What the Premier League can offer in response will also define its future. The prospect of bailing out rich, overspending owners in the Championship is primarily what stops them but the challenge is to find conditions less onerous for the EFL than those imposed by PBP on the rest of the Premier League. The proposal has been defeated but the idea will not go away, nor will the authors of PBP.
There will be aspects of PBP 2020 that its authors will concede is beyond their bargaining powers but they have not lost their appetite for a greater control. What kind of control they want will become easier to discern in the months and years to come as the value of rights value in the digital age takes shape and the power centre of world football post-2024 settles.
For those Premier League clubs at the bottom of the 20 last season, who threw so many obstacles in the path of Project Restart in a blatant pursuit of self-interest, this was also an uncomfortable reminder of their errors. They wanted to stop football to avoid relegation. In response United and Liverpool, and whoever else with their prints on PBP, wanted to control football forever in return for saving it. Neither emerges with much credit.
Of course, football’s power cannot – should not – ever be frozen in time forever. That was what PBP was proposing after 132 years of the league. Although it goes without saying that it would be a gross distortion of history. United were one game away from the Third Division north in 1934, and if they had not prevailed that day who is to say whether their post-war boom would have happened. Liverpool were a Second Division team when they alighted on the excellent idea of appointing Bill Shankly. At Stamford Bridge you often bump into Clive Walker, the man whose goal against Bolton in May 1983 prevented Chelsea dropping into Division Three.
The list goes on. Spurs? Relegated to Division Two in 1977. Arsenal? Saved by the politicking of that Edwardian wise-guy Sir Henry Norris, who moved a club in liquidation from Woolwich to Highbury. Manchester City? Even just 13 years ago they were still typical City, merry travellers back and forth across the game’s top three divisions.
PBP’s biggest mistake was its misunderstanding of the history of the game. What is that? A great changeable picture in which empires rise and fall, underpinned by a natural volatility that informs its very character to this day: season-by-season and game-by-game. No club, however impregnable they are made by money and fame, should be immune to the vicissitudes of league football, a wonderful idea conceived long ago.
Project Big Picture's biggest mistake was its misunderstanding of the history of the game
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 18, 2020
It had long since dawned on the rest of the Premier League, in the days that followed Project Big Picture’s crash landing in the consciousness of English football, that this, above all, represented an end point of sorts for a league competition that had existed continuously since 1888.
That was the birth of the Football League which then took 104 years, the establishment of the national grid, the invention of television and the repurposing of Andy Gray to issue forth the Premier League. Here, a further 28 years later was the end of all that. Project Big Picture (PBP) was a wrapping up of the dwindling democracy of the football pyramid – already skewed by the Premier League’s immense wealth advantage - to a kind of privately-run event.
When the 20 clubs convened on Wednesday’s Premier League shareholders’ call that was the question: is this how it ends? After 132 years of the lives of a myriad of clubs rising and falling and rising again, finally the music stops and the status quo is established in perpetuity. Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and three fortunate interchangeable others – who can conveniently be outvoted – running football forever.
A strange concept when one looks at the wider picture of a competition that has been a constant since before the invention of the modern bicycle tyre or the birth of Charlie Chaplin. In that first season, 1888-1889, Preston North End were English champions and they are still here now living within their means in the Championship. Never once a Premier League member, and so never a parachute payment beneficiary, Preston are testament to how fortunes can fluctuate, although such fluctuation was what PBP sought to eliminate.
PBP did not offer more money for the biggest clubs – in fact that was the least it wanted. The modest price it demanded from those outside the golden ropes of the “long-term shareholders” denied the special voting rights was this: it wanted their souls. It was not enough to be able to beat the rest of the Premier League, the elite wanted to decide who owned them too. They wanted to sack Premier League chief executives, amend broadcast contracts, change contracts, approve contracts. They wanted to reserve the right to change the bountiful offering they had made to others and secure the by-no-means-sinister requirement to “alter in a material way the nature of the competition”.
For the other clubs reading the PBP proposals revealed by the Daily Telegraph, it was hard to decide which was the lesser of the two indignities: having their money given away or their control taken away.
It should never have been a choice for the clubs that map the industrial past of England and Wales, to live on their knees or, in some cases, die on their feet. The revenue-sharing proposed in PBP in concept, if not quite in execution, was exceptional for the time but it is a measure of the desperation some feel that it could be accepted by so many in the EFL in return for subjugation. That is a stain on all the game, Premier League included. PBP without special voting rights is the basis for a discussion. With those voting rights, English football would be reliving the consequences of the great coronavirus financial panic of 2020 for the next 100 years.
No-one can doubt that a glimpse of the future has been afforded. The biggest clubs will want to play a full part in whatever the expanded Champions League looks like post-2024 when the new cycle of broadcast rights are negotiated. By then a version of PBP will have been brought back to the table, perhaps with those special voting rights watered down to include just oversight over long term, strategic decisions rather than selecting competitors’ new owners or changing the number of substitutes permitted. As for the current 18th draft, it was fatally flawed.
Liverpool and United put their name to PBP. In the white heat of disclosure, other club executives who had played smaller parts reversed quietly back into the proverbial undergrowth, Homer Simpson-style. They had lost their nerve at the backlash to a proposal that was simply unbalanced. PBP wanted to confer on its masters the right to veto new owners. It wanted to impose the much stricter Uefa financial fair play rules that would limit a new owner – assuming he or she could get themselves approved – to little more than £10 million of investment annually rather than the current £35 million.
It wanted to insist newly-promoted teams banked £25 million per year for their first two seasons to mitigate against relegation in a game where there would be no parachute payments. It wanted a 25 per cent of the calculation for a club’s earnings to be based on their average position over the last three seasons, reducing, at a strike, the ability of newly-promoted clubs to compete. There is a table on the final page of the 18th PBP draft that shows annual payments for a newly-promoted team finishing 17th in an 18-team league. It is £48.2 million an equity ratio of 1:3.7 compared to the top-earning club on £179 million.
What makes the Premier League what it is? What is the essential ingredient that convinces broadcasters and central sponsors to pay in excess of £3 billion annually for the privilege? What indeed is so unique that the authors of PBP confidently predict a ten per cent upturn when the next broadcast rights cycle starts in 2022-2023? It certainly has much to do with the Super Sundays and the no less marvellous Mondays when the likes of United, Liverpool, City and the rest clash with all their superstar names and managerial grudges.
But it is mostly a delicate competitive balance. Aston Villa 7, Liverpool 2. Or Manchester United 1, Tottenham Hotspur 6. Or Leicester City, Premier League champions 2015-2016. It is the stupendous shock factor that is still there every week, the results that represent the most extraordinary plotline in a digital world of unlimited crime dramas and CGI movie franchises straight to your set-top box. That is the money-maker. The competitive element would not disappear immediately under PBP because all dictatorships take time to filter their way through but it would come slowly, inevitably, atrophying every branch and stork of the league.
The control of youth development. Retrospective subsidies for stadium-building. Eight games sold independently by clubs in the international market. Rather than announcing the new totalitarian state on its first page, the defeat of the Premier League by PBP is there in the cumulative small details. It is no surprise that the vast majority of the EFL grasped it so willingly because when you have nothing left to lose then what harm is there in handing over another club’s democratic vote? For Rick Parry, the EFL chairman, and particularly those clubs in the death grip of Championship overspending, it was not just a rope tossed to them in a storm-tossed sea. It was a full lifeboat rescue followed by a five-star luxury cruise.
What the Premier League can offer in response will also define its future. The prospect of bailing out rich, overspending owners in the Championship is primarily what stops them but the challenge is to find conditions less onerous for the EFL than those imposed by PBP on the rest of the Premier League. The proposal has been defeated but the idea will not go away, nor will the authors of PBP.
There will be aspects of PBP 2020 that its authors will concede is beyond their bargaining powers but they have not lost their appetite for a greater control. What kind of control they want will become easier to discern in the months and years to come as the value of rights value in the digital age takes shape and the power centre of world football post-2024 settles.
For those Premier League clubs at the bottom of the 20 last season, who threw so many obstacles in the path of Project Restart in a blatant pursuit of self-interest, this was also an uncomfortable reminder of their errors. They wanted to stop football to avoid relegation. In response United and Liverpool, and whoever else with their prints on PBP, wanted to control football forever in return for saving it. Neither emerges with much credit.
Of course, football’s power cannot – should not – ever be frozen in time forever. That was what PBP was proposing after 132 years of the league. Although it goes without saying that it would be a gross distortion of history. United were one game away from the Third Division north in 1934, and if they had not prevailed that day who is to say whether their post-war boom would have happened. Liverpool were a Second Division team when they alighted on the excellent idea of appointing Bill Shankly. At Stamford Bridge you often bump into Clive Walker, the man whose goal against Bolton in May 1983 prevented Chelsea dropping into Division Three.
The list goes on. Spurs? Relegated to Division Two in 1977. Arsenal? Saved by the politicking of that Edwardian wise-guy Sir Henry Norris, who moved a club in liquidation from Woolwich to Highbury. Manchester City? Even just 13 years ago they were still typical City, merry travellers back and forth across the game’s top three divisions.
PBP’s biggest mistake was its misunderstanding of the history of the game. What is that? A great changeable picture in which empires rise and fall, underpinned by a natural volatility that informs its very character to this day: season-by-season and game-by-game. No club, however impregnable they are made by money and fame, should be immune to the vicissitudes of league football, a wonderful idea conceived long ago.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Good news for the National League, but too my eyes the government has wriggled out of it's promise to support the National League - by getting the National Lottery (a private company with Charitable obligations mandated by government) they are probably diverting monies from other equally good (if not better) causes. From the Telegraph
Pressure on Premier League mounts as National Lottery comes to the rescue of non-League football
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 18, 2020
The Premier League will come under renewed pressure from Government to increase its offer to the English Football League after ministers secured a rescue package for the competitions immediately below.
Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, announced that the 66 clubs in the National League will share £10 million funding as part of a partnership with the National Lottery.
Financial support for the fifth and six tiers of the pyramid was described as "crucial" by Mark Bullingham, the Football Association chief executive, who added "these clubs are the heartbeat of their communities and it would be a travesty if they were not able to survive".
The deal is now expected to be cited by ministers this week as they pile pressure on the billionaire footballing elite to come back with an improvement on the rejected offer of a £20m grant plus £30m loan scheme for the EFL.
The Premier League has suggested it is unwilling to budge immediately, saying its offer to the EFL is still on the table. However, Julian Knight, chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, is predicting potential "radical" interventions if the current "stand-off" continues. One option is a Government levy on the Premier League's broadcast deal, he suggested.
Ministers are pleased the Premier League successfully warded off 'Project Big Picture', but now want the league to come back with an improved offer for the EFL over the next week. Mr Dowden, the Culture Secretary, has repeatedly cited £1.2 billion summer transfer window spending as proof the funds are there to safeguard the game.
The new non-league funding package will be distributed to each of the 66 National League clubs to help cover their lost gate revenue from the delay to fans being permitted to return.
As part of the deal, National Lottery players will be offered free tickets once stadiums are safe to reopen, grassroots football opportunities, and VIP experiences at Wembley Stadium.
Mr Dowden said the support package "will provide a bridge to help clubs survive this immediate crisis whilst we work together on the safe return of fans".
Amid ongoing frustration at the ban on crowds, the Sports Technology Innovation Group (STIG) – made up of medical experts including Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam, sports authorities, and representatives from the tech sector – is due to make recommendations to Government over a potential timetable for stadiums reopening.
Pressure on Premier League mounts as National Lottery comes to the rescue of non-League football
TOM MORGAN OCTOBER 18, 2020
The Premier League will come under renewed pressure from Government to increase its offer to the English Football League after ministers secured a rescue package for the competitions immediately below.
Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, announced that the 66 clubs in the National League will share £10 million funding as part of a partnership with the National Lottery.
Financial support for the fifth and six tiers of the pyramid was described as "crucial" by Mark Bullingham, the Football Association chief executive, who added "these clubs are the heartbeat of their communities and it would be a travesty if they were not able to survive".
The deal is now expected to be cited by ministers this week as they pile pressure on the billionaire footballing elite to come back with an improvement on the rejected offer of a £20m grant plus £30m loan scheme for the EFL.
The Premier League has suggested it is unwilling to budge immediately, saying its offer to the EFL is still on the table. However, Julian Knight, chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, is predicting potential "radical" interventions if the current "stand-off" continues. One option is a Government levy on the Premier League's broadcast deal, he suggested.
Ministers are pleased the Premier League successfully warded off 'Project Big Picture', but now want the league to come back with an improved offer for the EFL over the next week. Mr Dowden, the Culture Secretary, has repeatedly cited £1.2 billion summer transfer window spending as proof the funds are there to safeguard the game.
The new non-league funding package will be distributed to each of the 66 National League clubs to help cover their lost gate revenue from the delay to fans being permitted to return.
As part of the deal, National Lottery players will be offered free tickets once stadiums are safe to reopen, grassroots football opportunities, and VIP experiences at Wembley Stadium.
Mr Dowden said the support package "will provide a bridge to help clubs survive this immediate crisis whilst we work together on the safe return of fans".
Amid ongoing frustration at the ban on crowds, the Sports Technology Innovation Group (STIG) – made up of medical experts including Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam, sports authorities, and representatives from the tech sector – is due to make recommendations to Government over a potential timetable for stadiums reopening.
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
@SportingIntel with a thread that provides more detail to this articleChester Perry wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:14 pmSurprised that it has taken till now for EFL clubs (and it is only some) to realise that Project Big Picture's promise of 25% of Premier League broadcast revenues, doesn;t actually ad up to much - from the Mail
'If it was in our interests why skulk around and plan in secret? It stinks': Furious EFL clubs say they were misled into supporting Project Big Picture with -
- Premier League's 25 per cent revenue claim including some of their OWN money
- EFL clubs were told the Project Big Picture (PBP) would be beneficial for them
- Rick Parry said they'd be financially better off despite no specific promises
- Most club owners in the EFL have had zero sight of the detailed PBP workings
By NICK HARRIS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:44, 17 October 2020 | UPDATED: 22:52, 17 October 2020
An angry group of EFL chairmen have told The Mail on Sunday they believe clubs in their divisions were misled into supporting the ‘Project Big Picture’ restructuring of English football drawn up by Liverpool and Manchester United.
A headline promise in the proposal — already scrapped but likely to return in an altered format — suggested the 72 EFL clubs would receive 25 per cent of all future Premier League revenues, or £750 million a year from 2022 onwards.
They currently split just over £400m, dished out via parachute cash, solidarity payments and academy grants.
But The Mail on Sunday has obtained a copy of the latest draft of the Project Big Picture (PBP) plans, and it appears to overstate Premier League revenues from overseas TV deals from 2022, at £1.4 billion a year.
The same draft proposes a reduction in Premier League clubs from 20 to 18, and that each club can sell eight games per seasons direct to overseas fans, or 144 in total.
Hence, the notion that overseas TV revenues will rise from £1.2bn a year now (with all 380 games per season in the overseas package) to £1.4bn in 2022 (when there will be 162 games in the package from a reduced total of 306) seems ridiculous.
Logically that 162-game main overseas rights package should be worth dramatically less than £1.2bn 380-game package now.
But the PBP architects are understood to feel premium content will retain value.
‘When you’re letting the Premier League clubs sell a load of games themselves in foreign markets it’s clear the value of the rest of the games in the overseas deal will be diminished,’ says Andy Holt, chairman of League One Accrington Stanley. ‘This whole PBP stinks. The people who designed it claim they’re doing it for the good of the game, so why skulk around and plan in secret?
‘If the intentions are honourable and they want to help, then why not be open and transparent from the start, tell people they’re going to make proposals — some of which will go down well and others won’t — and have an open conversation. The fact they didn’t speaks volumes.’
A second owner-chairman from a lower-division club told the MoS: ‘This looks like a grab by the six biggest beasts who would, in effect, have become all powerful.
‘All we’ve been getting is private briefings from the EFL that it’s in our interests to support it. But we have not actually been shown any detail.’
Most club owners in the EFL have had zero sight of the detailed PBP workings. The plan, which offers a Covid-19 bailout of £250m to EFL clubs plus 25 per cent of future Premier League revenues as headline details, has not been circulated.
‘You do have to wonder why EFL chairman Rick Parry has been pushing this,’ said another club owner.
‘Yes, it gets the clubs out of what we hope will be a short-term revenue hole. But at what greater cost in the future?’
The PBP document forecasts Premier League domestic TV revenue will rise by almost £200m by 2022 at a time when most analysts feel it will fall or stay flat.
Sources say the rise actually includes future EFL TV money. This again makes a mockery of the 25 per cent of PL revenue claim; in fact that 25 per cent includes some of the EFL’s own money.
Sources stress EFL clubs have never, at any point, been promised specific increases in revenue, only that Parry believes they would be financially better off under PBP in the near future.
https://twitter.com/sportingintel/statu ... 4378996748
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
The Unofficial Partner Podcast asks "WTF's a SPAC" in it's 4th Episode of Money Talks
https://www.unofficialpartner.com/podca ... tfs-a-spac
https://www.unofficialpartner.com/podca ... tfs-a-spac
-
Chester Perry
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3153 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
@KieranMaguire with another element as to how Project Big Picture serves only to reduce income for the EFL
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 7313694721
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 7313694721