Football's Magic Money Tree

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
superdimitri
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 724 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by superdimitri » Sat May 08, 2021 6:43 am

RammyClaret61 wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 6:20 am
I still think they should have a points deduction. They’ll just carry on next season like nothing happened, finish top six and get their money back. A 15-20 point deduction would make the season very interesting, some would miss out on champions league qualification. Thus hitting their pockets again.
Fining multi billionaires €2m is like fining me 20 quid.
The more severe the punishment the better. I already think they should have been punished even before the ESL fiasco started, if only for poor sportsmanship and spending money far beyond their means.

A club like Chelsea would be a mid table team if it weren't for the spending.

I've mentioned it before on here but I think the system they use in the MLS works well. Wage cap apart from 3 designated players. Clubs who breach the cap pay a hefty fine that's redistributed to the rest of the league.

In the Premier League a similar system would result in the top 6 continuously beaching the cap, but also continuously having to pay big fines. They money could be redistributed in the Premier League to tighten up competition and make it fairer for teams without big spending power.

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1090 times
Has Liked: 300 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by RammyClaret61 » Sat May 08, 2021 7:01 am

superdimitri wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 6:43 am
The more severe the punishment the better. I already think they should have been punished even before the ESL fiasco started, if only for poor sportsmanship and spending money far beyond their means.

A club like Chelsea would be a mid table team if it weren't for the spending.

I've mentioned it before on here but I think the system they use in the MLS works well. Wage cap apart from 3 designated players. Clubs who breach the cap pay a hefty fine that's redistributed to the rest of the league.

In the Premier League a similar system would result in the top 6 continuously beaching the cap, but also continuously having to pay big fines. They money could be redistributed in the Premier League to tighten up competition and make it fairer for teams without big spending power.
Agree. Here in Australia all codes have salary caps. I don’t get this argument about it being “restraint of trade” ? If all clubs in Europe had the same cap, per club, not individual. Then it’s up to the club how much they pay a top player. In the real world you get paid what the company can afford, not what the employee demands.
It would stop clubs paying 200%+ on wages to players. They wouldn’t be running at a loss, ticket prices would be affordable, stadiums ungraded. It would be a win win for football, instead of players and their agents pocketing millions every week.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat May 08, 2021 11:32 pm

could this be good news for Burnley FC - fans campaign means that The Hut Group - have pulled out of a £200m sponsorship deal with Manchester United claim the Guardian

Manchester United lose £200m training kit deal over fans’ anti-Glazers campaign
The Hut Group pulls out of contract starting in July, sources say
Fans are campaigning for boycott of club’s commercial partners

Exclusive by Jamie Jackson

Sat 8 May 2021 21.48 BST

Manchester United have missed out on a proposed new training kit deal worth £200m over 10 years after the Manchester-based company The Hut Group had concerns about the supporters’ campaign to boycott the club’s commercial partners in protest at the Glazers’ ownership, the Observer understands.

Richard Arnold, United’s group managing director, was told on Friday that THG had pulled out of a contract which was due to start on 1 July.

The branding of Myprotein, a Cheshire firm owned by THG, was due to appear on United’s training kit and replace the branding of AON, sponsors of the club’s Carrington training centre.

Last Sunday’s supporter protest against the Glazers outside Old Trafford led to United’s game with Liverpool being postponed until the coming Thursday. THG, it is understood, was taken aback by the subsequent social media and online backlash against United’s partners.

An anonymous United fans group with the hashtag NOTAPENNYMORE launched an online campaign to boycott the club’s major partners, which include Adidas, TAG Heuer and Cadbury, and wrote an open letter to them vowing to target their products.

It is understood THG, a multibillion pound company with offices near Manchester Airport, was concerned that as a local business it would be targeted by disaffected fans in Greater Manchester.

AON’s agreement expires on 30 June, which means United may struggle to strike a new deal of similar value to that proposed with THG.

The Glazers’ move to join the now defunct European Super League heightened the supporter opposition towards the American family. There was also some disillusionment and embarrassment within the club at senior level about how the ESL breakaway was presented.

Both THG and United declined to comment, with those familiar with the deal at Old Trafford confirming there are no ongoing talks.
This user liked this post: CrosspoolClarets

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sun May 09, 2021 6:02 pm

Jonathan Wilson talks about the the complexities involved in the redistribution of football's income, something he believes to be the crux of levelling up the game in England, and perhaps more importantly (from his perspective) for driving out the billionaires, and Private Equity - from the Guardian

There are no easy answers to how football tackles its unloved billionaire owners
Jonathan Wilson

Fans are right to protest but unless the game’s riches are better redistributed the super-rich benefactors are here to stay

Sat 8 May 2021 20.00 BST

Whether you see in the demonstrations at Old Trafford last week an outrageous affront to law and decency or a legitimate mode of dissent, a public expression at last of long-held grievances, it is clear, perhaps for the first time in English football, that there is a real sense of militancy among fans. With the super-clubs in retreat, the possibility of change appears real – or at least more real than it has been for years. In which case fans should probably work out what they want.

Already it is notable that the serious protests have been focused at the two super-clubs who have most reason to be frustrated with their owners. The mutinous mood of the past few weeks feels multi-layered. Manchester United and Arsenal fans both have specific issues with their American billionaire owners that go far beyond a lack of success on the pitch, feeding into a broader sense that football is being taken away from its roots and the people to whom it used to “belong”. This is happening in a country beginning to emerge from lockdown into intense financial uncertainty; there is a lot of pent-up energy which may dissipate as life returns to something like normal – or it may not, particularly if the economic situation worsens.

Rows over procurement may be too abstract really to ignite public fury; the way football clubs, great unprotected social institutions, have been taken over by hedge funds, oligarchs and sheikhs is perhaps a more immediate example of modern capitalism. Football, suddenly, is an active political topic in a way it has not been in Britain for years – and that happens at a critical point, just as it seems domestic broadcast rights may have peaked.

There has been a lot of talk about Germany’s 50+1 model, which guarantees the influence of fans. Nobody, surely, thinks greater fan representation would be a bad idea but that is only one part of the problem, demonstrated by Bayern’s domestic dominance. Fan representation is of limited importance without a new financial settlement.

This is not straightforward. Change the system in one area and you rapidly create an imbalance elsewhere. Take, for instance, the hard salary cap introduced in Leagues One and Two last August and subsequently scrapped after a challenge from the Professional Footballers’ Association. Broadly speaking, the smaller clubs voted in favour and the larger clubs, feeling they were being artificially handicapped, were against it. The regulations were intended to protect clubs pushed to the brink by the pandemic but, had they remained in place for any protracted period, would have opened a gulf between League One and the Championship. What was right for Accrington Stanley was not right for Sunderland.

So let’s go back to basics. Presumably most fans would accept some kind of elite: the idea of 92 league teams with precisely equal resources is not merely impractical but boring. Big clubs have glamour. Everybody relishes playing – and having the chance to beat – Manchester United and Arsenal; golden memories are not made of triumphs over Generic Team of Roughly Equal Ability XLVI.

But how many elite clubs should there be, and how elite should they be? Historically, English super-clubs have been less elite than elsewhere. Manchester United are the most successful club in league history but have won only 20 titles, approximately 16% of the total possible. That compares with Bayern, who have won more than half of all Bundesliga titles, Juventus with 38% of Serie A titles and Real Madrid with around the same percentage of La Liga titles (although in all leagues the trend is increasingly to a small elite).

That is only one measure of competitiveness. There have, say, been 24 different champions in England, more than twice as many as in Italy, Germany or Spain – although the English league is much older than the other three. In the past 20 years 14 different sides have finished in the top four in Spain, 13 in Germany, 12 in Italy and 10 in England.

What is optimal? There probably is no right answer. Having a Big Two or Four or Six seems unhelpful. Championship clubs overspend to bridge the gap to the Premier League, and parachute payments exist to ease the passage of teams going in the other direction, which itself elevates the Championship a significant level above League One.

But there is a fundamental problem here: success will always tend to be self-perpetuating. A team that wins earns more prize money, generates larger gate receipts, earns more in television revenues. They can buy better players which in turn makes them more attractive to fans, generating more money to be invested. If there is not to be a self-perpetuating elite, there has to be subsidy. That is why, until 1983, home clubs in England gave 25% of gate receipts to away sides, a form of redistribution that helped mitigate the advantage enjoyed by clubs with big stadiums.

The foundation of the Premier League was the final break from that model which recognised the responsibilities of the big clubs to the small. The elite could take a greater share of available revenues and stop worrying about what the likes of Rochdale or Cambridge thought.

It is easy to scorn the Premier League but the investment its advent made possible has radically improved facilities and the quality of football. To what extent would fans be prepared to sacrifice that for a more equitable model? How much say should Mansfield have over the affairs of Manchester United? Would saving Bury have been worth the elite being less able to challenge Barcelona?

The presence of externally wealthy owners, who in effect mean clubs do not need to generate their revenues through football, complicates matters further. But the issue of redistribution is key. There has been a lot of talk of solidarity but, unless the problem of the tendency of success to self-perpetuate is tackled, unless fans of the super-clubs face up to the question of subsidy and redistribution, the disaffected are essentially just hoping to exchange these billionaire owners for better ones. The bigger problem is that billionaire owners are needed in the first place.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon May 10, 2021 5:00 pm

Derby County may be celebrating survival in the Championship - courtesy of yesterday's opponents having a six-point deducted for trying to shift income between accounting years - but they are still up for sale and Erik Alonso does not seem to have the funds to change that (quelle surprise), and now are likely to start next season with their own points deduction as the EFL has finally determined the outcome of their approach to amortisation according to the Telegraph.

Derby County lose EFL legal dispute and face possible points deduction next season
JOHN PERCY MAY 10, 2021

Derby County are set to lose their latest legal dispute with the Football League and are facing punishment which includes a possible points deduction next season.

In a development which could have huge ramifications for the Championship club, who avoided relegation by one point on Saturday, the Football League are understood to have won their appeal over a charge of breaching financial rules.

The charge relates to Derby’s policy over the amortisation of intangible assets - how the purchase price of a player is spread over a contract - and sanctions were initially dropped earlier this year.

But the EFL appealed, with the hearing held over the weekend of March 20-21, and the verdict by an independent disciplinary commission has now been delivered.

Derby insisted on Thursday April 29 that no decision has been reached, when contacted by Telegraph Sport, and submissions were still being made by their legal team.

The EFL has also previously declined to comment, only stating that the process is ongoing.

However, multiple sources have alleged that the EFL have succeeded with their appeal, and Derby are now facing potential sanctions.

It is doubtful that any punishment will be imposed until next season, which could range from a points deduction to a fine.

Under EFL regulations, it is understood there is no possible recourse for Derby to challenge the decision.

Managed by England’s record goalscorer Wayne Rooney, Derby survived on the last day by one point, after a dramatic 3-3 draw with Sheffield Wednesday.

Relegated clubs including Wycombe are monitoring the situation and have not ruled out legal action.

Wednesday were deducted 12 points after breaching rules surrounding the sale of Hillsborough last July, which were subsequently reduced to six on appeal, and were relegated to League One on Saturday.

Birmingham suffered a 9-point deduction in March 2019 for breaking profitability and sustainability rules.

Wigan Athletic started this season in League One with a 12-point deduction after the club were placed into administration by previous owner Au Yeung.

The EFL and Derby have been locked in a legal dispute since January 2020, when the club was first charged for recording losses in excess of the permitted amounts over a three-year period.

Derby announced last month that they had agreed a takeover by Spanish businessman Erik Alonso, but there remains serious doubts over the source of his funding.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Mon May 10, 2021 5:02 pm

Odd if the points can't be applied now as the season hasn't ended yet..

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon May 10, 2021 5:07 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 5:02 pm
Odd if the points can't be applied now as the season hasn't ended yet..
Not really, happens a lot, based on judgement date - and the season ended on Saturday

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Mon May 10, 2021 5:09 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 5:07 pm
Not really, happens a lot, based on judgement date - and the season ended on Saturday
Even though the playoffs are yet to be done?

Ah well, starting with a decent points deduction and no new owner would be amusing.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon May 10, 2021 5:12 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 5:09 pm
Even though the playoffs are yet to be done?

Ah well, starting with a decent points deduction and no new owner would be amusing.
Technically play-offs are post season, you have to qualify for the tournament - though Wycombe will be hoping it is applied this season
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Mon May 10, 2021 5:51 pm

Anyone fancy buying a club newly promoted to Serie A - likely to be cheap compared to English club prices - last year it was Spezia that were promoted and sold for less than Ipswich - this year you can buy Salernitana, (though you have to do it in the next 30 days) as the owner also owns Lazio and cannot control 2 clubs in the same division under Italian FA rules - from the Mail

Salernitana defeat Pescara to secure promotion to Serie A for the first time in 23 YEARS... but promotion means president Claudio Lotito - who controls Lazio - has 30 DAYS to sell as he can't own two teams in same league
Salernitana secured promotion to Serie A for the first time since 1999 on Monday
Fabrizio Castori's side defeated Pescara on the final day to seal their promotion
It is good and bad news for president Claudio Lotito as he will now have to sell
Lotito also runs Lazio and league rules prevent controlling stakes in two teams
By NATHAN SALT FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 16:08, 10 May 2021 | UPDATED: 16:10, 10 May 2021

Salernitana booked their place in Serie A for the first time in the 21st century with a win over Pescara - but it proved bittersweet for president Claudio Lotito.

The Italian Football Federation's (FIGC) strict rules prevent controlling stakes in more than one team but with Lotito already owning Salernitana before the rule was amended, he was fine to keep a controlling stake while they were in the second tier.

But the success of Fabrizio Castori's mean that Lotito - who also runs Lazio - must now sell up within 30 days.

Currently there are five individuals in Italy who boast controlling stakes - owning more than 40 per cent of a club - in more than one professional club.

Along with Lotito, Napoli owner Aurelio de Laurentiis also has a stake in Serie C side Bari, Giampaolo Pozzo runs both Watford and Udinese and Giuseppe Saputo controls Bologna and Canadian side CF Montreal.

Spezia owner Robert Platek has three professional clubs in his portfolio, including Sønderjysk Elitesport in Denmark and Casa Pia in Portugal.

Speaking prior to Salernitana securing their promotion, FIGC president Gabriele Gravina confirmed Lotito would have to sell up as per league rules.

'We have a clear article, 16 of the Internal organisational rules reinforces a statutory principle seen in article 7 paragraph 8,' Gravina said on Monday morning.

'It is a rule in line with UEFA’s rules that does not allow participation in more than one club at a professional level.

'President Lotito enjoyed an exemption years ago. Everyone knew what was going to happen, I wish Salernitana all the best for this historic goal that they could achieve, but the rules are the rules. The situation of control cannot be continued and would lead to non-inclusion in the league.'

Salernitana finished runners-up in Serie B, amassing 69 points from 38 matches with a league best 19 wins.

It proved a tight first half against Pescara but a penalty from Andre Anderson eased the nerves before Tiago Casasola and Gennaro Tutino added gloss to the performance.

Empoli won the league to return to Serie A since they were relegated on the last day of the 2018-19 season.

huw.Y.WattfromWare
Posts: 3393
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
Been Liked: 1004 times
Has Liked: 905 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by huw.Y.WattfromWare » Tue May 11, 2021 12:34 am

As reported above by CP re:Derby County.
The Times are writing that sanctions could be applied this season. Possibly just looking for a good headline?
ED4F7501-005C-42E9-8118-F6FE3E2F9DA1.jpeg
ED4F7501-005C-42E9-8118-F6FE3E2F9DA1.jpeg (77.62 KiB) Viewed 3015 times

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 12:40 am

huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:34 am
As reported above by CP re:Derby County.
The Times are writing that sanctions could be applied this season. Possibly just looking for a good headline?
ED4F7501-005C-42E9-8118-F6FE3E2F9DA1.jpeg
There has been lots of media speculation about this through the day today, the justification would be the original decision was last summer so should be applied this season - which is reasonable, There could be a whole series of legal cases around when the final judgement was made though - with Derby arguing about the appeal decision and Wycombe arguing about the original decision - that could easily roll into next season making it a mute point - I think Derby would be prepared to spend enough money to make that happen.

huw.Y.WattfromWare
Posts: 3393
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
Been Liked: 1004 times
Has Liked: 905 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by huw.Y.WattfromWare » Tue May 11, 2021 4:24 pm

Not sure where else to share this. Hope it’s relevant.
2E358AE5-C3CE-4B51-9200-7F72946AE214.jpeg
2E358AE5-C3CE-4B51-9200-7F72946AE214.jpeg (292.56 KiB) Viewed 2978 times

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 11, 2021 7:10 pm

huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 4:24 pm
Not sure where else to share this. Hope it’s relevant.
2E358AE5-C3CE-4B51-9200-7F72946AE214.jpeg
i saw that yesterday, it fits in here - as you may have noticed I have been trying to keep away from this thread a bit - I was spending way to much time on it, though I have been doing the same on another thread since last night - I really need to step away for a few days I think

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed May 12, 2021 1:41 pm

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 03173?s=19

Fascinating animated chart showing which clubs have generated the most money through player sales since the start of the PL.

Shocking how much was made by the top club and we don't even feature on the list.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Vegas Claret » Wed May 12, 2021 3:14 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 1:41 pm
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 03173?s=19

Fascinating animated chart showing which clubs have generated the most money through player sales since the start of the PL.

Shocking how much was made by the top club and we don't even feature on the list.
that's what happens when you have been allowed to buy every talented kid and swell the ranks to insane degrees. Shows how well they done with their model though

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed May 12, 2021 3:40 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 3:14 pm
that's what happens when you have been allowed to buy every talented kid and swell the ranks to insane degrees. Shows how well they done with their model though
Yeah that's true.
Interesting that Newcastle were leading the chart until 2007/8

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Vegas Claret » Wed May 12, 2021 4:07 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 3:40 pm
Yeah that's true.
Interesting that Newcastle were leading the chart until 2007/8
indeed, I can only ever remember them signing players ! :lol:

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed May 12, 2021 4:13 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:07 pm
indeed, I can only ever remember them signing players ! :lol:
Without looking back through their sales history I'd struggle to name any sales that were high numbers.

DCWat
Posts: 9283
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:04 am
Been Liked: 4127 times
Has Liked: 3594 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by DCWat » Wed May 12, 2021 4:24 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 3:14 pm
that's what happens when you have been allowed to buy every talented kid and swell the ranks to insane degrees. Shows how well they done with their model though
I’m going back a lot of years here, but wasn’t there a rule put in place that was supposed to prevent clubs taking young players from outside of their radius (can’t recall how far it was).

I assume it’s either been scrapped, circumvented or just not followed!?

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed May 12, 2021 5:38 pm

DCWat wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:24 pm
I’m going back a lot of years here, but wasn’t there a rule put in place that was supposed to prevent clubs taking young players from outside of their radius (can’t recall how far it was).

I assume it’s either been scrapped, circumvented or just not followed!?
That's probably why Southampton have Premier Soccer Centres dotted around the south and have another larger set up at Bath to go with their youth academy.

https://premiersoccercentres.co.uk/abou ... c-academy/

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed May 12, 2021 7:03 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:31 am
Not sure how I managed to miss this over the weekend from the Telegraph - it just goes to show how fearful the Premier League is about going to market for domestic rights in the next cycle - this proposal helps the broadcast partners maximise ROI with surety while the Premier League no doubt hopes that it will minimise the impact of rebates, it is also repeats a successful strategy recently employed with BeIN Sport for the MENA rights deal. There is still a competition authority hurdle regarding it not being an open tender - though there are likely to be no more than a couple of organisations that could meaningfully bid for games

Premier League scrambles to avoid TV rights crash
BEN WOODS APRIL 24, 2021

The Premier League is in talks to scrap its television rights auction in favour of rolling over existing deals with Sky, BT and Amazon, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Football bosses are in sensitive discussions with the broadcasters and the Government about the potentially controversial move as they seek to avoid the risk of a hefty blow to the value of the rights from Covid.

Under its normal schedule the Premier League is due to auction domestic rights spanning three seasons to 2025 before May.

But Sky and BT were widely expected to rein in their spending, prompting sports rights experts to predict the value of those games to fall by more than £900m.

Football and media sources said a private sale is among the options being pursued as a means of securing greater financial security. Broadcasters are said to be open to the idea, which may deliver a small discount and would provide more certainty for their own businesses.

A deal could be structured to allow Sky, BT and Amazon to retain similar positions to those agreed in 2018 when TV rights spend fell by 10pc to around £4.7bn for the three seasons to 2022. Sky spent £3.75bn on 128 live games a season, while BT invested £975m on 52 matches a season. Amazon picked up the final packages of 20 matches a season for its streaming service, Amazon Prime Video.

However insiders fear repeating the agreements could trigger complaints from potential challengers such as the sports streaming specialist Dazn, which has said it plans to explore an auction bid for the rights. Its joint-chief executive James Rushton said earlier this month that “once the tender comes out, we’ll review it”.

The Premier League has been in discussions with the Government about the legal implications of a private sale.

It has sold international rights without an auction before, but such a move on home soil has not been attempted since a Brussels ruling in 2006. European competition watchdogs said the Premier League must sell its rights to more than one broadcaster.

It is understood the implications for a private sale of domestic rights are being considered at the Treasury in light of Brexit. One senior source said the failed breakaway bid by the competition's “big six” clubs last week “has further complicated matters”.

The Premier League’s boss Richard Masters is under pressure to shore up income after record TV rights growth under his predecessor Richard Scudamore.

However, a channel sharing deal struck between Sky and BT three years ago has cooled the competitive tension needed to increase the value.

Mr Masters is seeking to skewer any future attempt by a Premier League club to join a breakaway European league by overhauling the sport’s rules.

He has teamed up with the FA to carry out a governance review to stop the so-called “big six” – Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea – from threatening to undermine the league by pursuing more lucrative opportunities with rival competitions.

Those clubs joined the Super League last Sunday before carrying out a volte-face days later when confronted with a furious backlash from fans, players, and the Prime Minister. It prompted a string of apologies from the club owners and architects of the new competition.

JP Morgan, which was primed to furnish the clubs with £4.3bn of debt financing, said it “misjudged how this deal would be viewed by the wider football community”.

The Premier League, Sky, BT and Amazon declined to comment.
It appears that the route around competition law in Brexit Britain is to pay some rich people a large wedge of of cash - The Telegraph says that the Premier League can roll-over its £4.5 billion domestic rights deal (despite complaints) if they give the EFL clubs an extra £100m

Premier League agrees £4.5bn renewal of TV rights
The Premier League has agreed to give an extra £100m to lower leagues in exchange for government agreement to roll over TV deal

By - Ben Rumsby
12 May 2021 • 4:13pm

Premier League clubs have agreed to give away tens of millions more a year to lower-league teams in return for Government approval of its surprise plan to roll over its UK television rights deals.

As exclusively revealed by the Daily Telegraph, the world’s richest league has been seeking to extend its contracts with Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon on broadly the same three-year £4.5billion terms currently in place.

The Premier League usually holds a money-spinning auction for those rights but the coronavirus crisis compounded fears doing so for the 2022-25 seasons could spark a significant fall in their value.

The Government has been consulted over the rollover plan, which other broadcasters could seek to challenge on competition grounds, and was prepared to give its blessing provided top-flight clubs significantly increased solidarity payments to the rest of the English game to help it recover from the financial impact of the pandemic.

At a meeting to discuss the demand, the clubs agreed to give away a reported £100million on top of the £420m they were already set to pay the English Football League during the next three-year cycle.

An announcement of the deal could be made as soon as Thursday.

Telegraph Sport revealed last month how the Premier League and broadcasters were in advanced talks over agreeing a deal without going to open-market auction.

Values were estimated to fall for the next term, but an immediate renewal had some appeal to senior broadcasting executives due to post-pandemic market uncertainties. One source close to talks said that there may be a minor reduction in value under the terms, and that the new deal could be arranged pro-rata over two years rather than three while the market readjusts.

The Government, meanwhile, has significant clout to intervene amid the current furore around the so-called Big Six club owners following the Super League breakaway fiasco, which triggered the launch of a fan-led review of the English game.

Some rights experts predicted a UK television rights auction could see the value of those rights fall by more than £900m – to an overall sale of around £3.9billion.

The competition has sold international rights without an auction before, but such a move on home soil has not been attempted since a Brussels ruling in 2006. European competition watchdogs said then that the Premier League must sell its rights to more than one broadcaster. Now, in the post-Brexit landscape, advice and competitions approval from Government on the deal has proven key.

Broadcasters may yet secure a small discount which could be structured to allow Sky, BT and Amazon to retain similar positions to those agreed in 2018 when TV rights spend fell by 10 per cent to around £4.7bn for the three seasons to 2022. Sky spent £3.75bn on 128 live games a season, while BT invested £975m on 52 matches a season. Amazon picked up the final packages of 20 matches a season for its streaming service, Amazon Prime Video.

Insiders fear repeating the agreements could trigger complaints from potential challengers such as the sports streaming specialist Dazn, which has said it plans to explore an auction bid for the rights. Its joint-chief executive James Rushton said last month that “once the tender comes out, we’ll review it”.

The Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters is under pressure to shore up income after record TV rights growth under his predecessor Richard Scudamore. Masters declared in February that he was confident in values, but BT chiefs admitted the trajectory was flat to down. A channel sharing deal struck between Sky and BT three years ago has cooled the competitive tension needed to increase the value.

The scrapping of parachute payments is being championed by EFL chairman Rick Parry, who told the Telegraph the “best of Project Big Picture” should be reconsidered following the collapse of The Super League.

Under that plan, payments would have been replaced with a cash injection that would have seen the EFL given £250m immediately, plus 25 per cent of revenue from future top-tier TV deals. The EFL is currently asking for a share of Norwich City and Watford’s £83 million parachute payments following their immediate return to the Premier League.

The Premier League declined to comment.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Thu May 13, 2021 9:22 pm

The Telegraph report that Derby County have terminated all talks with Erik Alonso in regard to his proposed takeover of the club - no real surprise, you would think that Mel Morris has learned a few lessons by now in regards to what a decent prospective buyer looks like

Derby scrap negotiations with Spanish businessman Erik Alonso over proposed takeover
JOHN PERCY MAY 13, 2021

Derby County are scrapping negotiations with Spanish businessman Erik Alonso over the proposed takeover of the Championship club.

Mel Morris, the Derby owner, is set to abandon talks with Alonso amid concerns over whether a deal can be concluded, with an American consortium now back in dialogue.

Alonso has proved a controversial figure since announcing his intention to buy Derby, insisting he has the funds required to take charge of the club.

The 29-year-old, and Derby, announced on April 7 that they had agreed a takeover with his company No Limits Sport Limited.

Days later he insisted his ultimate goal was to lead Derby into the Champions League.

"My goal is to make Derby big again and get back to the Premier League as soon as possible," he told BBC Radio Derby.

But it is understood a deal is now off and Morris is talking to other interested parties with a consortium from America now back in the frame.

Derby declined to comment on Thursday evening.

Alonso has been active on social media since expressing his desire to buy the club, but endured embarrassment earlier this week when he deleted his Twitter account, hours after being accused of re-using footage of a large property included in a TikTok video to claim it was his own house.

It emerged a lavish home which was supposedly his property was revealed to belong to an estate agent in Los Angeles. Alonso is understood to have alleged that his account had been hacked.

Alonso was previously linked with a bid to buy Sheffield Wednesday earlier this season.

The latest development comes after a torrid week for Derby, who avoided relegation from the Championship on the final day by one point.

On Tuesday it emerged that the EFL had won their appeal against Derby over misconduct charges, with the club facing a potential points deduction next season.

Derby have also this week lost their bitter legal row with former captain Richard Keogh, being ordered to pay around £2million in compensation by a tribunal.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri May 14, 2021 2:04 am

The Daily Telegraph with some of the fallout from the renewed domestic rights deal for the Premier League

Premier League's £4.5bn TV deal condemned - but what are broadcasters getting out of it?
Plus: Analysis of why Premier League supremo Richard Masters looks to have pulled off a coup in securing broadcast rights rollover

By Ben Rumsby ; Tom Morgan, SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT ; Press Association and Sam Wallace, CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
13 May 2021 • 8:55pm

The Premier League's £4.5billion TV rights rollover was condemned by the Football League as a "missed opportunity" to mend the game's ongoing financial turmoil.

An extra £100million solidarity payment will fail to tackle the "status quo of an unbalanced, unsustainable, and unfair" system, according to a withering appraisal from the lower tiers. Under Government dispensation, the deal confirmed by the top flight is almost like-for-like that which was agreed in 2018 with Sky, BT, Amazon and the BBC.

Only BT Sport will tweak its arrangement, moving Saturday lunchtime kick-offs to an evening slot when teams have been in Champions League midweek action. While that will leave more fans than ever facing late night journeys home, the pledge is a victory for Jurgen Klopp and other managers from the Big Six.

The Liverpool boss was embroiled in a heated exchange with BT Sport journalist Des Kelly amid suggestions his players were getting burned out by the TV scheduling. Extra funding for the pyramid, first disclosed by the Daily Telegraph last month as a potential bargaining chip with Government, does not include any extra help for the Championship.

The private nature of the sale, instead of holding the normal open tender process, required the Government to agree in principle to an exclusion order under the Competition Act. The Government says it is “minded to” approve such an order but will consider representations from interested parties before making its final decision, and it is understood the EFL could raise a challenge to it. However, the EFL believes ministers should have driven a harder bargain and forced a wholesale rethink of how television revenue is split.

Instead, senior figures believe parachute payments should have been scrapped as part of a new model. “While we recognise the attempts by the Government to increase the level of solidarity provided to League One and Two clubs through this process, what is more urgently required is a fundamental reset of the game’s financial model – both in terms of fairer distribution of monies at all levels and sensible, realistic cost control measures to ensure clubs will live within their means,” a league statement read.

“Today’s announcement appears to have been a missed opportunity for the Government to obtain a commitment from the Premier League to address the financial imbalance that exists between the top division and the rest of football and comes just a matter of weeks since football and authorities unified with a collective voice to protect the integrity of the top division and wider pyramid in this country.”

The Premier League, meanwhile, sees its contributions to the wider game as “world-leading” and highlighted that £450m will go to EFL clubs over the next rights cycle, excluding parachute payments. Chief executive Richard Masters, who has overseen the deal while fighting off the challenge of the Project Big Picture and Super League proposals, said that he hoped an extraordinary year had strengthened the league’s unity.

Calling separately for the rebel six European Super League to be punished “justly and appropriately”, he said: “I think some good can come out of this in the sense that the collective will end up being stronger and the Premier League organisation will end up being stronger because of it but I think that goes for a lot of things that have happened this year. The stresses and strains we have been under.”

He joked that after 30 meetings for executives of the 20 clubs and the Premier League over the pandemic – instead of the usual five – they would all benefit from a summer not seeing each other. “We need to put the ESL behind us which means talking to the clubs involved and finding out what happened before we can move forward and that process is ongoing,” Masters said. He said that the punishments for the rebel six, which it is understood will be significant fines, would be done “efficiently” – “justly and appropriately is my way of putting it.”

The Premier League will go to market with its remaining international rights territories - in the rest of Europe; north and south America and much of Asia - as usual. Discussing the rollover of the rights deals, Masters said that the Premier League “economy” had lost £2 billion so far over the course of the pandemic and that the renewed domestic deal offered “financial security” and “certainty over uncertainty”.

He expects a return of stadiums full-to-capacity with fans for the start of the new season on Aug 14, observing that “mood music and the messages coming out of government are positive”. Politicians agreed with the Premier League that there were “exceptional and compelling reasons” to back the renewal.

A written ministerial statement from the sports minister Nigel Huddleston said the government was “content” that the Premier League’s request for an exclusion order had nothing to do with the European Super League proposals.

Analysis: Masters looks to have achieved one of the Premier League's great coups
By Tom Morgan

Richard Scudamore was still packing up his bags at the Premier League's West London HQ in 2018 when the TV analysts first predicted the boom years were over.

With Sky and BT openly talking of trimming their spend on sport in the years to come, the long-serving executive chairman had timed his retirement impeccably. Pity his successor, it seemed, as at least two subsequent candidates baulked at warnings clubs should be braced for losses in excess of £600m on the next sell off.

Three years on, however, and amid the unprecedented financial chaos of Covid, the internal candidate who finally got the top job has pulled off what appears to be one of the league's great coups.

Despite Simon Green, the head of BT Sport, warning this year that a "rights correction" beckoned, Richard Masters secured a £4.5bn rights rollover that swims against the tide.

The inevitable question, then, is what are the broadcasters getting out of it? The packages suggest very little, with the Premier League reverting to almost exactly the same model as it did prior to the pandemic. Like the terms agreed in 2018, Sky Sports gets 128 matches per season, the same carve up of various Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Friday slots.

BT Sport again gets 52 matches per season, but - following the complaints of Jurgen Klopp and others - have agreed to move their Saturday lunchtime slots to evening when featured teams have been in midweek Champions League action.

Sources close to the Premier League also say the same number of 3pm matches will return along with the broadcasting blackout when crowds return in full from the start of next season.

However, the devil is likely to be in the detail when the new deal kicks in next year, with access to players an area still up for negotiation. Sky and BT will have looked on in envy at the behind-closed-doors scenes of the All Or Nothing documentary series, particularly those changing room histrionics at Tottenham Hotspur.

While such access during a live match would be an anathema for every Premier League manager, the broadcasters have clout like never before to push for any marginal gains.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri May 14, 2021 2:47 am

Meanwhile the Guardian chooses to focus on the fact that the Championship has been deliberately left out of the extra funding to the game - there is no secret to this - I have posted many times in the past, parachute payments are about making the Premier League stronger and more competitive, not about distorting the Championship - though there is the by product which we are witnessing more often which is relegated teams are returning more often to the Premier League, with Parachute payments not made - this profits the Premier League clubs (and easily covers the extra funding commitments that the Premier League have promised to the game at the lower levels - for the next 4 seasons. With the prospect of big fines to the greedy six it will be interesting to see the battle for those monies unfold in the neat future

Football League hits out at Premier League’s new domestic TV deal
EFL claims deal threatens the future of the football pyramid
Parachute payments ‘distort competition between clubs’

Paul MacInnes
Thu 13 May 2021 20.22 BST

The EFL has lashed out at the Premier League’s new domestic TV deal, claiming it threatens the future of the football pyramid.

The government has allowed the English top flight to roll over its £4.8bn arrangement with broadcasters for another three years from 2022, on the condition it gives an extra £100m to support football in England.

That funding will go to areas of the game including women’s and girls’ football, Leagues One and Two and, for the first time, non-league clubs. However, there will be no money for the Championship, and the controversial parachute payment system will be retained.

In an unstinting attack on the deal, the EFL claimed the money would not fix systemic problems but perpetuate them. “The current media rights deal will preserve the status quo of an unbalanced, unsustainable, and unfair financial distribution model across English football which continues to cause serious financial issues throughout the football pyramid, while continuing to distort competition between clubs and threaten the long-term viability of EFL competitions and clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two,” it said.

At the heart of the EFL’s fury is not so much the absence of funding for the second tier but the perpetuation of parachute payments. By approving the deal, the EFL believes, the government has guaranteed the system will continue at a time when serious reform of the game is being considered.

Parachute payments mean clubs relegated from the top flight are paid sums for up to three seasons, with £42m in the first year, while clubs elsewhere in the division receive £4.5m in “solidarity” payments from the Premier League each season. The EFL has long argued these payments perpetuate financial imbalance within the division, and lead other clubs to overspend to compete.

Tracey Crouch, the former secretary of state for sport, has been commissioned by the government to head a “fan-led review” into football governance. One of the terms of reference for her review will be to “examine the flow of money through the football pyramid, including solidarity and parachute payments, and broadcasting revenue”.

One senior EFL figure said the deal may have compromised the review. “What will government do if Tracey Crouch recommends abolishing parachute payments?” they asked before summarising the situation briskly. “Clubs spending 107% of turnover on wages, £300m of losses, £380m of owner funding and £1.1bn of debt is neither profitable nor sustainable.”

The Premier League remains steadfast in its defence of the system of redistribution in general and parachute payments in particular. Asked about the absence of support for Championship clubs in the new £100m of funding the league’s chief executive, Richard Masters, said he believed money provided under current arrangements was enough.

“In the last two years we have distributed a lot of revenue and additional monies into the Football League,” he said. “But the major recipients of the solidarity money are the Championship clubs themselves. We think it’s the right balance at the moment.

“When I talk about the £1.5bn [in solidarity payments over the length of the TV deal] it includes parachute payments, but the sums that aren’t parachute payments are still substantial and it’s a £110m we give to the EFL each year that’s shared amongst clubs that aren’t parachute clubs. The majority of that goes to the Championship.”

The Premier League is set to save more than £80m in unspent parachute payments this year after two of last season’s relegated clubs, Norwich and Watford, earned immediate promotions.

The terms of the renewed TV deal are to be the same as the preceding three years, meaning Sky and BT Sport have the lion’s share of 200 live matches, with Amazon another live rights holder and the BBC getting highlights.

Masters, addressing the aborted European Super League, said: “We need to put the ESL behind us which means talking to the clubs involved and finding out what happened before we can move forward. That process is ongoing.”

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri May 14, 2021 3:00 am

The Premier League seemed very firm in their own statement on the new domestic deal that the additional funding was for the next four years only - they expect the game to repair itself in this time and not to be called on again (some may call that naive but it gives them something to point back too- particularly in government, for a post whole game review scenario, where a number are demanding an independent regulator to spread more of the Premier Leagues money around)

Broadcasting
League secures approval in principle for renewals with UK broadcast partners
13 May 2021

Clubs agree to proposal for three-year renewal of agreements with Sky Sports, BT Sport, Amazon Prime and BBC Sport

Premier League clubs have unanimously agreed a proposal to conclude a three-year renewal of the League’s UK live and non-live broadcast agreements with Sky Sports, BT Sport, Amazon Prime Video and BBC Sport.

This follows approval in principle for the renewal from Government after an extensive period of consideration.

The approval from Government will be embodied in an Exclusion Order under the Competition Act 1998, which will enable the Premier League to conclude the renewals without conducting its normal broadcast rights tender process.

In light of the damaging impact of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the English football pyramid, the Premier League was able to demonstrate to Government exceptional and compelling reasons for the Exclusion Order.

Safeguarding financial support
This is based on the renewals safeguarding the world-leading levels of financial support committed to the football community through solidarity, youth development and wider community and good causes contributions.

The UK renewals for the next broadcast cycle - from seasons 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 - will be concluded at the same overall value as the current arrangements between the Premier League and its broadcast partners.

As part of the Premier League’s developing strategic plan, the renewals will provide financial certainty to clubs throughout professional football as a result of maintaining current levels of support and enables the League to commit to increased funding. This will give security and continuity throughout the pyramid until at least 2025.

Pre-pandemic, the Premier League budgeted to commit £1.5bn to the pyramid over a three-year period, more than any other sporting organisation provides to its community.

Additional £100m funding
On the basis of the Exclusion Order and the UK renewals, that commitment will be maintained during the next rights cycle and will be supplemented by an additional £100m of funding. This additional £100m will be provided over the next four years only, and will extend support to areas of the football community particularly vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19.

The additional funding will be available to more than 1,000 clubs in the National League system, women’s and girls’ football, EFL League One and League Two clubs and the Football Foundation. It will also support a number of football-wide projects, which will include the Premier League’s work looking at head injuries in football, anti-discrimination and fan groups who receive funding from the Premier League.

Continued commitment
Richard Masters, Premier League Chief Executive, said: "The Premier League would like to express our gratitude to our broadcast partners for their continued commitment to the Premier League and support for the football pyramid.

"We are hugely appreciative of the Government agreeing in principle to allow this arrangement and for their continued support for the Premier League and the English game. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on football, and renewals with our UK broadcast partners will reduce uncertainty, generate stability and promote confidence within the football pyramid.

"We know that, once concluded, this will have a positive impact on the wider industry, jobs and tax revenues and will enable us to maintain and increase our existing solidarity and community financial commitments to the football pyramid for the next four years, even though we are yet to understand the full impact of the pandemic.

"Once concluded, this arrangement will have a positive impact on the wider industry, jobs and tax revenues"

Richard Masters, Premier League CEO

"It comes at an important time and will enable us to plan ahead with increased certainty against a more stable economic backdrop. 

"Sky Sports, BT Sport, Amazon Prime Video and BBC Sport are excellent partners and provide fantastic coverage and programming to bring our competition to fans in the UK."

The Premier League continues to develop its strategic plan and will consult with all stakeholders to ensure a vibrant, competitive and sustainable football pyramid. The plan focuses on competition structure, calendar, governance and financial sustainability.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri May 14, 2021 3:07 am

I posted at the time that it was not surprising that Fifa President Gianni Infantino waited to see how the wind was blowing before making a statement on the European Super League - Phillipe Auclair and his colleagues at Josimar have some depressingly unsurprising detail on his/fifa's activities in the background to the Super League launch

Infantino’s double game
12/05/2021

In public, Gianni Infantino has disowned the doomed European Super League project. But a confidential document seen by Josimar strongly suggests that, in private, he has encouraged it, and that Fifa has been playing a double game all along in order to extend its control over world football and weaken its greatest counter-power, UEFA.

By Philippe Auclair

At least things were clear in January.
“In light of recent media speculation about the creation of a closed European “Super League” by some European clubs, FIFA and the six confederations (AFC, CAF, Concacaf, CONMEBOL, OFC and UEFA) once again would like to reiterate and strongly emphasize that such a competition would not be recognised by either FIFA or the respective confederation. Any club or player involved in such a competition would as a consequence not be allowed to participate in any competition organised by FIFA or their respective confederation.”

The signatory whose name appeared in first position at the bottom of this statement was Fifa president Gianni Infantino, followed by the presidents of all six confederations.

Fast forward to 18 April, when the football world seemed about to shift on its axis, following the publication of multiple reports in British and US media that the long-feared European Super League was to become a reality, that a so-called ‘Dirty Dozen’ of the continent’s ‘superclubs’ had, indeed, come to a formal agreement. A few hours later, one by one, all of the conspirators had released their own statement, confirming the original leak.

“Solidarity”
So, how would Fifa react to what, judging by the January statement, constituted a direct affront to its authority? By threatening the offending clubs – and their players – with an automatic suspension from all official Fifa- and Confederations-sanctioned tournaments? Far from it. Whilst Uefa, whose Congress would take place a matter of days later, immediately declared war – at least a war of words – on the twelve instigators of the breakaway competition, the Zurich-based organisation published a statement on its website that did not mention the word ‘exclusion’ once. Quite the opposite, in fact: it adopted the lofty tone favoured by neutral arbiters in an international dispute, as if it wasn’t really party to the conflict, and only wished it to be resolved as peacefully as possible. Fifa stood ‘firm in favour of solidarity in football and a model of equitable redistribution that can contribute to the development of football as a sport, especially worldwide‘. It called ‘on all parties involved in heated debates to engage in a calm, constructive and balanced dialogue for the good of the game and in a spirit of solidarity and fair play. FIFA, of course, will do whatever is necessary to contribute to a harmonized path towards the general interests of football‘.

In other words: ‘calm down, children, Daddy will sort you out’.

As could be expected, this conciliatory message went down like a lead balloon within Uefa, so much so that Gianni Infantino was compelled to change his tune when he addressed the Congress of the European Confederation in person on 20 April.

Marriage of convenience
Another factor had made it impossible for him to remain as non-committal as he’d been in the first instance: the astonishingly strong reaction of ordinary football fans, especially in England, which found a echo among players past and present, managers, national associations and, indeed, almost every single club which wasn’t involved in the project. And then, the clincher: within a matter of hours, it had become clear that the European Super League was doomed to fail. Fifa could not be associated in any way with such a shambolic enterprise. It had to change its tune, and Fifa did.

“We can only strongly disapprove the creation of the Super League,” Infantino told the Uefa Congress, “a Super League which is a closed shop, which is a breakaway from the current institutions, from the leagues, from the associations, from UEFA and from FIFA. […] If some elect to go their own way then they must live with the consequences of their choice. They are responsible for their choice. Concretely, this means either you’re in or you’re out. You cannot be half in or half out.”

This went down rather better with the European delegates than Fifa’s previous pronouncement, even if ‘disapproving’ and ‘condemning’ are far from the same thing and Infantino held back from proposing actual sanctions against those who did ‘elect to go their own way’. Yet Uefa president Aleksandr Čeferin could thank the Fifa president in these terms: “You showed that you care about the values of football. And if we stand together, we are unbeatable.” To the outside world, this suggested that Fifa and Uefa would at least be united in a common goal: the defeat of the rebels’ plans.

Except that all of this was a façade which fooled absolutely nobody within Uefa, as everyone within Uefa believed that Fifa had played a different hand in this game from the beginning, a hand it couldn’t show to the world – not yet. There were multiple clues that, far from being an adversary of the European Super League, Fifa had been party to its tractactions and had at least cast a benevolent eye on a plot it knew everything about. La Liga chairman Javier Tebas put it even more bluntly on 11 May at a sports conference in Madrid: “Infantino is pushing behind the [European] Super League and I told him so, in person.”

How could he be so sure?

The African Model
To start with, let’s change continents. From Europe to Africa.

One of the major criticisms levelled at the European Super League was its abandonment of the pyramid system. With promotion and relegation no longer applied as reward or punishment for performance, football would lose the very foundation on which it had built its competitive worthiness for a century and a half. The way clubs could circulate from one division to the next according to their merit had been the lifeblood of competition. To apply the tourniquet would kill the whole organism.

In this context, Infantino’s mention of a ‘closed shop’ in his address to the Uefa Congress appeared to show that the president of Fifa shared this belief in the sacrosanct nature of the pyramid system. The problem was that what he had repeatedly said elsewhere demonstrated that this was not the case. The idea of a ‘Super League’ gathering clubs which wouldn’t have to fear demotion – ever – did not bother him. On the contrary, this was exactly the idea that he’d been advocating and actively promoting for a while – for the ‘good’ of African, not European football. To wit, this is what he’d said in December 2019 while on a visit to Lumumbashi in the Democratic Republic of Congo:

“We have to take the 20 best African clubs and put them in an Africa league. Such a league could make at least US$200 million in revenue, which would put it among the top ten in the world.”

He had reprised the theme two months later, at a meeting with the International Sports Press Association (AIPS) in Budapest:

“I want to create a real pan-African league that would feature 20-24 clubs with a maximum of maybe two clubs per country that would still play in their national leagues but that would play during the year so we can really crown the club champions of Africa.”

The use of ‘I’ will have grated with many Africans, who would have thought that it was perhaps up to them, at least up to their Confederation to decide what was best for their football. Thankfully for Infantino, he now had this Confederation, CAF, at his heel since installing his ‘great friend’, South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe, as its, or should it be ‘his’ president in March, following an electoral campaign of which Fifa controlled every aspect, which Josimar analysed in detail. The creation of an African Super League remains very much on Fifa’s agenda, as was confirmed by a rather indiscreet tweet posted – on the very day of Motespe’s election in Rabat – by Barbara Gonzalez, the CEO of Simba SC, the up-and-coming Tanzanian club which belongs to another billionaire, Mohammed Dewji.

“It was great catching up with @FIFA.com President, Gianni Infantino on the sidelines of the #CAFElections2021. The rollout of the African Super League with 20 permanent member clubs is underway. We look forward to having @SimbaSCTanzania participate soon.”

The telling word in this tweet is ‘permanent’. The African Super League which Infantino is trying to establish and ‘is underway’ would seem to leave even less room for outsiders than the European model he ‘strongly disapproved of’, which at least kept a minimum of five of its twenty slots for clubs other than its founding members. It goes without saying that Motsepe’s own Mamelodi Sundowns would be one of the twenty lucky clubs, as would TP Mazembe, the property of another key African Infantino ally, Congolese billionaire businessman and would-be politician Moïse Katumbi.

It could be objected that the dire state of the finances of African club football, as well as the almost complete collapse of interest in domestic competitions there, makes it indispensable to think of strategies which cannot be applied elsewhere. Infantino, therefore, could defend an idea which would be of benefit to African football, but could not be transposed in a different eco-system; but this would be forgetting that the reason why Real Madrid, Juventus and the others decided to go along with their own plan is precisely that: the dire state of their own finances, which poses an existential threat to their very existence – at least as members of European football elite. It always was all about the money, stupid.

Real Madrid’s president Florentino Perez and Juve’s Andrea Agnelli may be many (mostly unpleasant) things to many people, but they are not exaggerating when they warn about an impending catastrophe for the European football economy, with the pandemic acting as a kind of super-booster. Official accounts show that the ‘dirty dozen’ have accumulated over 800 million euro of combined losses in 2019-20. The 2020-21 results will be even worse. Milan, for example, has registered losses of 486,1 million euro over the last three seasons. The ‘economic’ argument is, mutatis mutandi, applicable in Europe as it is in Africa. Conversely, if Fifa is so vocally in favour of a Super League on one continent, why should it oppose it on another when the very principle of a ‘closed shop’ doesn’t seem to cause it much concern in itself? The answer, Tebas would say, is that it doesn’t, and that he has proof of it.

The Document – An Agreement With ‘W01’
The ‘proof’ is a 10-page confidential document of which Josimar has obtained a copy, which has been shared at the highest echelons of football’s governing bodies since last January. Its authors must remain anonymous for the time being, but its authenticity is not in doubt. Crucially, the mass of granular detail it offers on the projected Super League model (such as the location and structure of the controlling company, the format of the competition, the names of the clubs taking part, the amount of money offered to the founding clubs and put aside as solidarity payments, etc) was corroborated when the actual project was made public three months later. Every single particular was correct. This means that the rest of the information contained in this document – the part that was not made public in April – can be viewed with confidence. It makes for fascinating – and, for Fifa, extremely embarrassing – reading.

Gianni Infantino himself appears twice in this document, on page 3, barely disguised under the code name ‘W01’, as in ‘world number one‘. ‘A WCC [World Club Cup] Team Sheet is “agreed with W01 (Fifa?)‘, we read. And ‘it is also said that there is a “partnership” with W01″ for €1bn solidarity payments‘.

It is no secret that the set-up of a revamped, enlarged Fifa Club World Cup (CWC) remains one of Gianni Infantino’s main ambitions, even if his plan to have it in place as early as this year first floundered, then foundered when the pandemic hit. The competition which was supposed to welcome twenty-four teams in China, with financial backing widely believed to come from Saudi Arabia via Japanese financial group SoftBank, has now been moved to December 2021, when only seven teams will travel – or so it is hoped – to Japan.

However, as Infantino put it at a press conference held in December 2020, an expanded Club World Cup is “still on the agenda, we just haven’t decided when it will take place“. What he did not say then was that the fate of the Club World Cup he had in mind would be linked so closely to the fate of the European Super League that had been in development from 2017 at least. He is just as unlikely to say it now.

According to the document we have seen, the new-look CWC (theoretically starting in the 2023-24 season) would comprise, not of 24, but 32 teams, of which twelve would be the founder members of the European Super League. The tournament, taking place over three weeks in January, would be staged annually, not every four years as initially mooted. It would also be a full knock-out competition, in order to accommodate the greater number of teams taking part within the three-week window allocated to the tournament in the international calendar.

The advantages for Fifa would be clear. Continental Super Leagues, if organised by club consortiums and not by confederations, would provide the perfect feeder tournaments for its own flagship competition, which it could then brand, promote and sell as ‘The Best’, short-circuiting the existing continental cups (slow-killing them, in fact), and thereby weakening the economic and political power of confederations, two of which Infantino’s Fifa perceives as a threat to its desire of total dominance, South American CONMEBOL and European Uefa. The establishment of a Super League (in all but name) in Africa would represent a stepping stone. In Europe? Already a consummation.

It is in this light that Infantino’s more recent statements in the media should be seen. The president of Fifa first chose French sports daily L’Équipe to make a plea for forgiveness of the clubs which had defied Uefa (and, presumably, Fifa itself). “Certain actions should have consequences, and everyone must assume their responsibilities”, Infantino said in what was presented as an interview, but read more like a statement, echoing the words he’d used at the Uefa Congress. Then came the all-important caveat. “But you always have to be careful when you talk about sanctions. It’s said quickly that you have to punish. It’s even popular — or populist — sometimes. By punishing a club, for example, you are also punishing players, coaches and fans, who have nothing to do with it. [..] I always prefer dialogue to conflict, even in the most delicate situations”.

Infantino then moved on to Spanish AS, which is part-owned by a member of the Qatari royal family. “We stand by UEFA in rejecting the Super League”, he said. “We are against it and we will always be against any competition which is not part of the international structures of football and that threatens the unity and solidarity that should always exist in the football pyramid, which links grassroots and amateur level to the top stars. Having said that, it is also my duty to advocate that all the parties should enter into a profound and hopefully constructive dialogue in search of positive solutions”.

As ever, the devil lied in the choice of words. Most people would read this as a condemnation of the Super League; but it can also be understood as just the opposite, as the only way to keep the Super League option open in the wake of its dismal failure.

“Any competition which is not part of the international structures of football“. But what about a competition which, indeed, would be ‘part of the international structures of football’, i.e. devised in consultation with Fifa? Something similar to what Fifa fully intends to put in place in Africa? Now, that would be a different story.

One wonders what ‘W01’ would think of it.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Fri May 14, 2021 6:57 pm

Barney Ronay in the guardian frets over the fact that the Chinese government are indirectly part owners of Inter Milan, while forgetting that they have a similar distinction at Southampton and that has been running a lot longer than a couple of month's, it occurred at the moment that the current owner took over.

Why China investment in Inter brings urgent need to scrutinise owners
‘The same government that disappears people and silences dissent, is underwriting Ashley Young’s wages. Which does slightly put the Glazer family crimes against effective fan engagement into some perspective.’

As the Italian parliament debates whether Italy should formally recognise that China is guilty of genocide on its Uyghur citizens, the Chinese state is a part-owner of the Scudetto champions

Barney Ronay
Fri 14 May 2021 17.12 BST

You might think Liverpool have had an underwhelming Premier League title defence. The mid-season collapse. The failed attempt to join a Super League. The strangely maudlin video address from the club’s owner, delivered in the style of a baffled senior executive apologising for an involuntary bladder malfunction at the company golf day. None of this is ideal.

But spare a thought for the reigning Chinese Super League champions, Jiangsu FC, who are nowhere to be seen four games into the new season.

Jiangsu do at least have an excuse. The Chinese champions no longer exist, having been dissolved by their owners in February and deemed too much of a liability to keep going, despite the 60,000-capacity stadium and the 63-year history.

“Jiangsu football club ceases the operation of its teams,” a statement from the appropriate arm of the club owner, Suning Holdings, announced, going on to thank the fans for their “solidarity”, the people who, you know, make it all worthwhile. Made. Used to make. Whatever.

And so the CSL has simply rolled on into the new season. Marouane Fellaini’s Shandong Taishan are top of Group One. Marko Arnautovic scored a hat-trick on the opening day and will presumably soon be using this as leverage for a lucrative switch to North Korea or Mars or Atlantis.

Oscar continues to see out the projected eight-year stint at Shanghai SIPG that will net him about £100m: a footballer manacled to his own hare-brained contract, but hanging in there all the same despite the recent salary cap that means his local teammates can earn at most a 10th of his wages.

Although, it should be said not everyone has simply moved on from the liquidation of the champions. There were awkward scenes on social media last week as Internazionale’s chairman, Stephen Zhang, celebrated the club winning lo scudetto, and was met with angry responses from Jiangsu fans who believe their club was in effect sacrificed at the altar of Inter’s absurd debts.

It is here that this story becomes more hair-raising. Suning also owns 68% of Inter, a club so up against it Italian media reported a recent missed payment to Manchester United on the Romelu Lukaku account. But Suning isn’t the only player here, or in any sense the most powerful.

Nobody seems to have noticed or taken any real interest, but as of the start of March operations tied to the Chinese government bought a 23% stake in Suning.

It is important to note why this happened. Suning is in financial trouble. The new part-owners are a state industrial arm. China is not interested in owning Inter for sportswashing or soft-power reasons. But the fact remains, the Chinese state is a part-owner of Inter. An arm of the Chinese government is, at one remove, the most imposing voice on the board of the Serie A champions.

There has been no real mention of this mind-boggling fact. Football has enough on its plate. Although given the furore over the prospect of the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund buying Newcastle, or Manchester City’s status as a PR tool of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, you’d think it might merit a mention.

That may yet come to pass.

In a further twist, the Italian parliament is debating a motion on whether Italy should formally recognise that China is guilty of genocide on its Uyghur citizens, as opposed to merely violating their human rights.

And yes, this is football, a place where nobody is really clean, where ties can be found linking every investor to a dubious deal, every government to an armaments trail. But this is something more.

Pending that resolution, Italian football faces a scenario in which its champion team, the grand old regal Internazionale of Giuseppe Meazza, Sandro Mazzola, Ronaldo, Roy Hodgson, is part-owned by what its government considers to be a genocidal regime. The same government that disappears people and silences dissent, is underwriting Ashley Young’s wages. Which does slightly put the Glazer family crimes against effective fan engagement into some perspective.

Inter are in enough of a mess already. Javier Zanetti confirmed this week the club finances have been broken by loss of sponsor and match-day income. Reports suggest the players have been asked to consider a wage deferral. Lukaku could be returning to the Premier League, with Chelsea and City perhaps using him as an early stalking horse in the great game of pandemic-era super striker sales.

In the meantime China’s de facto, arm’s-length stake in Inter sits there, its implications largely unexamined. If Italy decides this is a genocidal state, how does its Football Association sustain this situation?

Are we expected to listen to Uefa’s vapid preaching on racism and prejudice, while allowing a club owned by a state that runs “re-education camps” to play in its premier competition? How would Mesut Özil, or other players who feel strongly on these specific matters, feel about taking the field with this entity?

These are theoretical questions, to which we know most of the answers. No doubt the Inter oddity will pass some time soon with the sale of the club’s dominant holding. Those who know say the CCP has long since grown tired of China’s sporting ambitions being used as a feeding ground for the hungry sharks of European football. That capital flight is being called home.

In the meantime, if these contortions tell us anything it is that there has never been more urgent need to limit and scrutinise exactly who gets to own our community sporting assets. One thing Inter’s ultimate minority owners would agree on: time for a little empowered regulation of that wild and promiscuous global free market.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9824
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2339 times
Has Liked: 3155 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Paul Waine » Fri May 14, 2021 7:09 pm

Ex-football manager Zoran Mamic on the run after stealing £13m

Hannah Lucinda Smith, Friday May 14 2021, 12.01am, The Times

The former manager of Croatia’s top football club is on the run after being convicted of stealing £13 million in player transfer scams, one of which involved the sale of Luka Modric to Tottenham Hotspur.

Croatia has issued an international arrest warrant for Zoran Mamic, 49, who coached Dinamo Zagreb from 2013 to 2016 and again from 2019 until this year. He resigned from the club after a prison sentence of four years and eight months was upheld in March, but is believed to have fled to avoid another for embezzlement and tax fraud.

Mamic was convicted in 2018 of stealing £13 million through fictitious player transfers, as well as tax evasion of £1.4 million, but had appealed against the sentence. He failed to show up on Monday to begin his jail term.

A former professional player who also captained the club and won six caps for the Croatian national team, he is believed to be in neighbouring Bosnia, where he also holds citizenship.

His brother Zdravko, 61, the club’s former executive director who was also convicted of the fraud, is already in Bosnia. He fled Croatia shortly before the original sentences were passed, having received six years and six months in prison.

One of the fraudulent transfers was the sale of midfielder Modric to Tottenham Hotspur in 2008, with half of his €21 million fee being transferred from Zagreb into Zdravko Mamic’s private accounts. Both Modric and Dejan Lovren, another international player, gave evidence during the trial.

Croatia has called on Bosnia to extradite the men. However, in November 2019 a Bosnian court refused to do so for Zdravko Mamic, since it does not extradite citizens except under specific terms.

The two countries, both part of Yugoslavia until its disintegration in the 1990s, have an often tense relationship, since about 15 per cent of Bosnia’s population are ethnically Croat, and have the right to Croatian citizenship. However, the two have been proactive in prosecuting and extraditing alleged war criminals.

************************

No comment. No comment. No comment.

Well, what more could anyone say?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat May 15, 2021 12:10 am

A sorry tale of yet another well intentioned rich man getting it badly wrong in football, because he was desperate to give the fans what they wanted - though even Derby fans are starting to realise that it is a club on a stable and sustainable footing - it is no wonder that Mel Morris has been dealing with shysters in trying to sell the club, - no one in their right mind will take it as it stands - this explains the stories that have been circulating that the only way to sell the club is to put it into administration - from the Mail

EXCLUSIVE: Potential Derby County buyers are WALKING AWAY after discovering debts and liabilities of more than £60MILLION, including £8m owed to ex-boss Phillip Cocu and assistants
Potential buyers of Derby County are walking away after discovering huge debts
Debt & future liabilities in excess of expected income is said to total £60m
There is reported £10.3m owed to Phillip Cocu, his assistants and Richard Keogh
The club also have an 'eye-watering' £20m HMRC bill putting buyers off a deal
By CRAIG HOPE FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:46, 14 May 2021 | UPDATED: 23:35, 14 May 2021

Potential buyers of Derby County are walking away after discovering debts and future liabilities of more than £60million - including £8m owed to former boss Phillip Cocu and his two assistants.

We are told there is also an ‘eye watering’ HMRC bill north of £20m, as well as the £2.3m compensation payment to former captain Richard Keogh and a loan of £17.5m plus rolling interest with MSD Holdings, which is guaranteed against Pride Park.

Would-be buyers of the Championship club are abandoning talks when calculating they will have to find more than £60m between now and next summer, a figure consisting of debt and future liabilities in excess of expected revenue.

And now, given the threat of a points deduction for a breach of EFL financial rules, sources close to investors say owner Mel Morris must revise his expectations if he is to sell the club and save it from the threat of liquidation.

Even if Morris were to give away the club for £1 - and that has been mooted - buyers do not believe Derby to be worth the £60m and more it would cost to cover liabilities in the first year.

One source said: ‘An option is that Derby go into administration to remove part of their debt. However, only non-football debt is wiped off by doing so, and that is less than £10m, which isn’t enough.

‘If he is going to sell the club, Mel Morris needs to give it away for nothing and agree to cover half of the debt. At the present time, because of the uncertainty over the points deduction, it looks unsellable.

‘To pay, in effect, £60m for Derby, it makes no business sense at all, especially as there are plenty of other clubs for sale right now. Someone could be tempted if you thought the squad needed one or two additions and could challenge for promotion to the Premier League, like what happened at Aston Villa.

‘But Derby are in a mess, on and off the pitch. If Mel Morris is unable to find the right buyer, then we could be looking at the biggest liquidation in the history of British football.’

Derby owe close to £10m to ex-boss Phillip Cocu and Richard Keogh, who won a compensation claim against his former club worth £2.3m earlier this week

Sources say it is little wonder Morris held on in the hope of Erik Alonso finding the money to proceed with his takeover, given the Spaniard had agreed to pay £5m over 12 months and take on the debt. But Alonso failed to produce the funds and Morris has finally abandoned hope of that deal being completed.

Derby have not filed their accounts for the past two years, so the true picture of their financial state is not known publicly.

But those with knowledge of the books have told Sportsmail they do not make for comfortable reading.

Cocu, for example, was sacked in November, along with assistants Chris van der Weerden and Twan Scheepers. We are told there was no break clause in their contracts and more than £8m was owed in severance.

Meanwhile, Morris has told Sportsmail that the £60m figure quoted is based on a ‘worst case scenario’. He also makes the point that the MSD loan equates roughly to the stadium mortgage he cleared after buying the club.

And with regards the HMRC debt, Morris says many Championship clubs have had to rely on a deferral of PAYE taxes to cope with the impact of Covid-19 and how it has decimated club revenues.

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1090 times
Has Liked: 300 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by RammyClaret61 » Sat May 15, 2021 7:14 am

What is Derby’s wage bill against their income? Is this another case of all the money going to players.

Top Claret
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 1238 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Top Claret » Sat May 15, 2021 8:44 am

RammyClaret61 wrote:
Sat May 15, 2021 7:14 am
What is Derby’s wage bill against their income? Is this another case of all the money going to players.
Always is the case, along with the debt to ex player and management team.

They have got themselves into a right mess, and one thing for sure is that we won't be seeing Derby in the Premier league for a very long time, if ever

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat May 15, 2021 10:14 am

RammyClaret61 wrote:
Sat May 15, 2021 7:14 am
What is Derby’s wage bill against their income? Is this another case of all the money going to players.
Their wage bill has exceeded their income for a while now.

The 2017-18 season it was 137% to turnover.

I haven't seen the 18/19 accounts yet.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat May 15, 2021 12:32 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Sat May 15, 2021 10:14 am

I haven't seen the 18/19 accounts yet.
No one has. they haven't been publish, Derby say that is a result of the ongoing cases against them from the EFL - which is as close to a legitimate reason as you could expect - they will likely be published shortly - more interesting is that they may have to restate their accounts going back to 2014/15 as a result of the EFL's successful appeal over the amortisation method - this will likely see them fail a number of FFP tests over the years and make see further charges arise.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat May 15, 2021 12:46 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat May 15, 2021 12:32 pm
No one has. they haven't been publish, Derby say that is a result of the ongoing cases against them from the EFL - which is as close to a legitimate reason as you could expect - they will likely be published shortly - more interesting is that they may have to restate their accounts going back to 2014/15 as a result of the EFL's successful appeal over the amortisation method - this will likely see them fail a number of FFP tests over the years and make see further charges arise.
Further charges which potentially lead to further points deductions?

:lol:

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat May 15, 2021 11:39 pm

This is a serious read - a non football column about modern society that references football - It contains themes that have previously been posted on this thread - from the Guardian

Manchester City play beautiful football but it masks the ugliness of their owners

Nick Cohen
Being backed by an oppressive regime takes the gloss off the Premier League champions

Sat 15 May 2021 18.00 BST

You cannot tell the truth about beauty in England without the ugliest people in the country threatening you. The National Trust is the custodian of the beautiful best of the nation’s heritage. Let it compile a historical record on how many of the stately homes of England were connected to the slave trade and Conservative MPs demand a Putinesque “panel of patriots” to purge “elitist bourgeois liberals” from cultural life.

Our Orwellian culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, feeds the beasts in his base as he delivers lectures on what versions of history we must remember. Meanwhile, the trustees of museums are told to sign “loyalty pledges” backing government policies. All because researchers challenge the prejudices of the ruling party by accurately describing British history.

Manchester City are the most beautiful football team in England – probably the world – and deservedly won another Premier League title last week. City have the best manager anyone can remember and from Ederson in goal to Phil Foden up front, players of sublime skill and enviable courage and self-control.

When football correspondents investigate how that success is built on the money directed to the club by the petro-princeling Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, all hell breaks loose. Fans don’t want to hear about the connection between the beauty of the play on the field and a deputy prime minister from the United Arab Emirates, which bans political opponents, jails dissidents and enforces state-sponsored misogyny. They do not want to know that UAE wealth comes not only from oil, tourism and financial services, but from the labour system in the Gulf states that isn’t quite slavery but too close to it for comfort. Foreign nationals account for 88% of the UAE’s population. Those who leave their employers without permission face punishments for “absconding” and, in the words of Human Rights Watch, are “acutely vulnerable to forced labour”.

Sport and culture are becoming like gangsters’ molls. You can admire the beauty but must stay away from the suffering behind the spectacle.

Try starting a conversation about how Manchester City could afford the biggest single-season wage bill in English football history (£351.4m in 2019-20) and an estimated €1.036bn (£890m) invested in transfer indemnities to sign the squad’s current players and watch as the abuse descends.

One football writer pointed me to this season’s Champions League semi-final between the UAE’s Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain, owned by the rulers of Qatar. He said that one day historians would go through the television and press coverage and notice how few journalists discussed the fundamental fact that plutocratic and dictatorial states were using sport to burnish their image.

I can see why people want to avert their eyes. Are Manchester City fans meant to stop supporting their team when Gulf money turns it from an also-ran into a world-beater? The journalists who report on its finances do not say that. They just do their job: presenting the truth that in England and France, regimes that combine avarice and oppression in equal measure control the best clubs. The National Trust’s report on the links between its properties and slavery and colonialism was scholarly and dry. As with honest football reporters, the historians merely presented the evidence. Yet Conservatives reacted like the most fanatical City fans when their own beautiful myths were questioned.

You only have to see how rarely the empire appears in popular fiction to know that imperial nostalgia has not provoked the backlash. Instead of nostalgia, we have imperial amnesia: a desire to hide from the ugliness of the past. Accurate histories of empire puncture the Scottish sense of victimhood and the English belief in the quaintness and decency of our civilisation. According to the national myth, country homes were the backdrops for charming love affairs and eccentric dukes rather than monuments built on the broken backs of enslaved men and women.

A worldly observer might say slaves built the Parthenon and that tithes the medieval church extracted from a poverty-stricken peasantry paid for the Gothic cathedrals. Just as there is a crime behind every great fortune, so there is an unjust society behind every work of beauty. Better to accept that than become a bitter, puritanical nag who cannot see others enjoying the beauties of a country estate or of football played at the highest level without wanting to ruin their pleasure.

But we can afford to be worldly about the monuments of classical Athens and medieval Christendom because they are from lost civilisations. Britain’s past and football’s present matter because racism and the power of plutocracy are vital and vicious forces that surround us. The response to journalists and historians who report the facts is not therefore a shrug of the shoulders, but a consuming fury. Conservatives who decry woke censorship now sound like the most intolerant of leftists, as they demand purges and authorised histories.

Manchester City fans, meanwhile, have become a raging force on social media. As well as cheering on their team, they cheer on their team’s owners and chant Mansour’s name. In my home city, there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people willing to engage in power worship at its most demeaning and to whitewash an autocratic state solely because it pays for exquisite football.

“I’ve had the most sustained toxic abuse I’ve ever seen in my life when I investigated City,” one football reporter told me. Fans put the home addresses of journalists on the internet, while in one instance bricks were thrown through a reporter’s window. The Football Writers’ Association has contacted Manchester City three times about the abuse directed at its members. The club was concerned and courteous in its replies. However, it sounds like the Tory right, and every dictatorship whether in the Gulf or not, as it fuels fans’ anger with conspiratorial talk of “organised and clear” attempts to damage the club’s reputation and threats to hire “the 50 best lawyers in the world” to sue the football authorities if they dare challenge Manchester City’s interests.

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” wrote John Keats. “That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” In Britain, however, when beautiful national myths and the beautiful game are questioned, truth is always the first casualty of the culture war.

Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sat May 15, 2021 11:50 pm

Missed this during my stepping away from the board this week - La Liga has signed the biggest ever overseas league deal in the US with ESPN - note the length, 8 years, exactly what Claire Enders has been talking about as necessary to bring in the larger numbers (hence the Premier League role over deal domestically) - You would imagine that this will have the Premier League hopeful for their own deal which should be sealed in the next few months. This deal for la Liga comes in the week after spanish courts came down on La Liga's side after Real Madrid tried to block the collective agreements (https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/la- ... management) - from SportsProMedia

ESPN secures ‘US$1.4bn’ La Liga US rights deal until 2029
Eight-year agreement sees Spanish soccer league buyout BeIN Sports’ contract.

Posted: May 14 2021 By: Sam Carp

- ESPN+ to stream 380 top-flight games per season
- Deal is the most valuable US media rights contract for an overseas soccer league, reports Sportico
- La Liga’s US broadcast partnership with BeIN originally due to run until end of 2023/24 season

Disney-owned sports broadcaster ESPN has secured rights in the US to La Liga until the end of the 2028/29 season.

Financial terms of the eight-year deal were not made public, but Sportico reports that ESPN will pay the Spanish soccer body US$175 million a year, equal to some US$1.4 billion over the duration of the agreement. The sports business outlet added that it is now the most valuable US media rights contract for an overseas soccer league.

Starting from the 2021/22 season, the deal will bring live and on-demand coverage of 380 top-flight matches a year to ESPN+, the broadcaster’s subscription streaming service. ESPN+ will also show a selection of games from La Liga SmartBank, Spanish soccer’s second tier, including five promotion playoffs. All fixtures will be available in both English and Spanish.

Select matches will air across ESPN’s linear networks each season, while coverage and highlights will also be available on SportsCenter and other ESPN studio programmes, as well as on the broadcaster’s digital and social platforms.

The expansive deal also includes a variety of surround programming, including match previews, highlights and magazine shows.

“We are absolutely thrilled to bring La Liga to ESPN in the US,” said La Liga president Javier Tebas. “This is an historic eight-season agreement in US soccer broadcasting that speaks to the power of La Liga and its clubs in the largest media market in the world and will bring the world’s best soccer league to American screens in a more comprehensive and modern way than ever before.”

The deal further bolsters the lineup of soccer on ESPN+, which also includes Spain’s Copa Del Rey knockout tournament, Germany’s top-flight Bundesliga and Major League Soccer (MLS), among others.

Burke Magnus, executive vice president of programming and original content at ESPN, added: “As the sport of soccer continues its ascendance in the US market, we are incredibly excited to work with La Liga to establish a deeper connection to American fans through our company’s industry-leading streaming platforms, television networks, and digital and social media assets.”

In order to agree the deal with ESPN, La Liga had to buy back its US media rights from Qatar-based broadcaster BeIN Sports, which was due to be the league’s exclusive broadcast partner in the country until the end of the 2023/24 season.

BeIN said in a statement that the arrangement is ‘strategically and commercially beneficial’ to the two parties, who remain partners in markets such as France, Australia, and the Middle East and North Africa.

Commenting on the move, Richard Verow, chief sports officer at BeIN Media Group, said that the broadcaster still has “significant ambitions” for the US market, where it holds rights to properties such as French soccer’s Ligue 1, South America’s Copa Libertadores and the Africa Cup of Nations.

“Like broadcasters all over the world, we are constantly assessing our rights portfolio across all our markets to ensure financial discipline, commercial and strategic sense, and – crucially – long term growth,” Verow added. “This arrangement with La Liga in the US and Canada reflects that, sacrificing a short-term gain for long-term wins and sustainability in North America.

“Financial discipline has never been more important in the current context, where you have a ferociously competitive US market, coupled with constantly changing viewing habits, all complicated further by the pandemic and rampant piracy.”

North America is an important strategic market for La Liga, which in 2018 signed up to a 15-year joint venture with US sports and entertainment company Relevent Sports to grow its brand in the region. The league’s new deal with ESPN will put it alongside a number of other premium sports properties and also expose it to a broad US audience, with Disney reporting this week that ESPN+ now has 13.8 million subscribers.

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1090 times
Has Liked: 300 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by RammyClaret61 » Sun May 16, 2021 1:31 am

One of the reasons Manchester City went from being one of my favourite other teams, all the way to the bottom of the cesspit of hate. Their fans are the worst kind. Vilified others who spent big, but absolutely have the “nothing to see here” mantra now.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sun May 16, 2021 1:28 pm

More on that La Liga US distribution deal - enabled by BeIN Media who have changed their outlook on the US OTT marker which has fast become dominated by true media giants - from SportsBusiness.com

Resale of LaLiga US rights by beIN to tip balance towards ad-funded free model
Martin Ross May 13, 2021

The resale of LaLiga broadcast rights in the US and Canadian markets by beIN Media Group is expected to lead to a change of strategy at the subscription broadcaster with a heightened focused on its free advertising-supported channels.

BeIN and LaLiga have agreed a “strategic buy back” of rights in North America in order to facilitate an eight-year deal between the league and Disney’s ESPN reported to be worth a record $175m (€144.5m) per season.

The Qatar-based broadcaster described LaLiga’s repurchase of the rights from 2021-22 to 2023-24 – the final three seasons of the existing beIN contract – as “significant”.

ESPN has announced a long-term contract that will take effect from next season onwards and includes both English- and Spanish-language rights. The lucrative deal marks the latest example of a leading rights-holder going to market in the US to benefit from the rush for sports rights content to fuel US broadcasters’ OTT streaming platforms.

The rights, which include all 380 matches per season from the top-tier league and matches from the second-tier LaLiga SmartBank, will be showcased on the ESPN+ streaming platform, with selected matches on the ESPN networks each season.

In August 2019, beIN announced the retention of its LaLiga rights in North America in a four-year deal from 2020-21 onwards. Matches are broadcast exclusively by beIN in both English and Spanish.

The broadcaster, which has struggled to secure lucrative distribution revenues from the US market and has launched its free beIN Sports Xtra channels in English and Spanish in the last 18 months, claimed that the agreement struck with LaLiga gives its North American business “a stronger long-term footing and more strategic balance” in “one of the world’s most fiercely-competitive markets for media rights”.

The broadcaster said: “beIN’s new ad-driven (rather than subscription-driven) channels are seen as the future model of profitable broadcasting in the US, in light of evolving consumer habits and demands, inflated rights fees and piracy.

“Further, in the US the distribution landscape is increasingly challenging for independent pay-TV channels, where distributors have started demanding prohibitively unreasonable distribution terms to cover their own losses and favour their own channels.”

SportBusiness understands that beIN now plans to bid for rights in North America on a “proportionate” basis and look to make a return on investments. The rights acquisition focus is expected to hone in on rights properties popular among Hispanic sports fans, notably in football, plus “up-and-coming” sports that won’t carry sizable rights fee costs.

The decision to sell back the LaLiga rights has been driven by the move to reshape the US business with beIN showing little appetite to take on the likes of ESPN, ViacomCBS and NBC/Peacock in the high stakes battle for OTT subscriptions. It also comes after a repositioning of beIN’s business in France.

Dynamics that are thought to have been considered ahead of the LaLiga rights resale include the rampant cord cutting among US and Canadian consumers, younger viewers’ decreasing time spent viewing sport, piracy, declining media rights values globally (with few exceptions, notably the US and the Nordics) and the financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

While ESPN has been unveiled as the new LaLiga broadcaster in the US market, cable broadcasters TSN and RDS, in which ESPN holds a minority stake, have secured the rights in Canada.

On the selling back of the rights, Richard Verow, beIN Media Group’s chief sports officer, remarked: “Like broadcasters all over the world, we are constantly assessing our rights portfolio across all our markets to ensure financial discipline, commercial and strategic sense, and – crucially – long-term growth.

“This arrangement with LaLiga in the US and Canada reflects that, sacrificing a short-term gain for long-term wins and sustainability in North America. Financial discipline has never been more important in the current context, where you have a ferociously competitive US market, coupled with constantly changing viewing habits, all complicated further by the pandemic and rampant piracy.

“beIN has significant ambitions for the US market, across both sports and entertainment – not least shown by our successes with Miramax – and also in free-to-air broadcasting. This deal really gives us the platform to be opportunistic, strategic and long-term over the coming cycles.”

The Qatar-based broadcaster also holds LaLiga rights in another 35 countries and territories, including France, southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa.

Balance shifts towards ad-supported channels
Having launched the English-language version of beIN Sports Xtra in November 2019 and a Spanish version earlier this year, beIN has continued to experiment with the subscription versus free mix.

The broadcaster now looks set to increasingly shift more content to the free channels and look to build up weightier advertising revenues with subscription numbers stagnating and the broadcaster’s appetite to spend big to land top-tier rights in the US on the wane.

The loss of the LaLiga rights leaves France’s Ligue 1 and South America’s Copa Libertadores and Copa Sudamericana as the strongest properties in beIN’s North American rights portfolio. The Turkish Süper Lig, Africa Cup of Nations and Paris Saint-Germain friendlies are also offered, but major rights such as the Uefa Champions League (ViacomCBS’ Paramount+), Premier League (NBC), Bundesliga (ESPN) and Serie A (Paramount+) have been secured elsewhere.

While the main focus of the beIN channels is football, content from other sports, including basketball, handball, mixed martial arts and skiing, is also part of the line-up. Various motorsports deals, plus an agreement in polo, are expected to be announced shortly and look to be reflective of the redefined strategy.

As it continues to balance the offerings for the free and paid services, beIN has shown selected live LaLiga and Ligue 1 action on beIN Sports Xtra. This weekend the channel will show LaLiga’s Real Betis versus Huesca and Ligue 1’s Lille versus Saint-Étienne clashes.

Following various distribution deals in the last 18 months, the beIN Sports Extra channels are available on the likes of Fanatiz, KlowdTV, Redbox, The Roku Channel, Samsung TV Plus, Tivo, Vizio and Xumo TV. Distributors currently taking the beIN Sports USA subscription channels include the likes of Altice, Cox Communications, Dish and Verizon Fios, plus streaming platforms Fanatiz, FuboTV, Sling TV and Vidgo.

The beIN channels were dropped by Comcast and DirecTV in 2018, dealing a serious blow to the broadcaster’s household reach in the US market. The broadcaster unsuccessfully filed carriage complaints against Comcast with the Federal Communications Commission, the US media regulator.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Sun May 16, 2021 1:53 pm

It is also interesting to note just what the football on broadcast TV looks like in the US now, this inevitably tends to cover Canada too.

The single biggest market viewer wise is for Liga MX - though it does not pull in the greatest revenues that is largely owned by Fox Sports and its local subsidiaries in English and Spanish Language rights - though ESPN have some Spanish language rights for a small number of games each week

Disney owned ESPN now have the rights to all La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A games as well

You would imagine that that in itself will drive up the value of the Premier League rights as the only international property of substance remaining - English language rights have been with Comcast owned NBC (they also own SKY) for ever it seems and Spanish Language rights are owned by them too. until the La Liga announcement this week this was by far the biggest overseas deal in the US - $1 billion for six years.

It seems that NBC/Comcast believe that there are going to face serious competition for the next round of rights and have been making room in their budgets to ready themselves for the battle - music to the ears of the Premier League who have thrived off such battles - could the US like the Nordics (remember that incredible £2 billion six year deal with NENT) ride to the rescue of Premier League revenue growth? It would take another long deal of at least 6 years but do not be surprised if it is longer - American broadcasters in particular value such long-term certainty (and generally have the funds to back it up

Here is a piece from the Times earlier this month on how NBC are altering their sports budgets

NBC cut hockey costs to allow big bid for Premier League
Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter
Saturday May 01 2021, 12.01am, The Times

There are signs that the Premier League is on course to clinch a lucrative new television deal in the US, with NBC said to be prioritising its English football rights even over ice hockey.

NBC’s six-year, $1 billion deal (£720 million) with the Premier League ends after next season and it appears the broadcaster is gearing up for another big bid, with the English top-flight coverage driving subscriptions for its Peacock streaming service.

If and when it happens — there could be a rival offer from CBS, which has the country’s Champions League rights — it could be another slump-defying deal in a market where sports rights are generally falling in value.

NBC is believed to have told ice hockey’s NHL that it was willing to offer only half the amount it had previously paid for the rights — and lost out as a result. Media observers in the US said NBC was “saving up the money in order to keep the Premier League”. Peter Moore, the former Liverpool chief executive, told The Times in September that NBC had made “the Premier League must-watch TV on Saturday morning for just about every American family”.

The American deal is one of the biggest still outstanding for the Premier League, which has recovered markedly after its rights deal with the Chinese broadcaster Suning collapsed last summer.

The league is close to sealing a three-year extension for the domestic rights, which would mean Sky, BT Sport and Amazon retain their packages for the same £4.5 billion total, subject to government agreement. It has also renewed its $500 million deal with beIN Sports for the Middle East, and has a £2 billion-plus six-year deal with Nent for the Nordic countries.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 18, 2021 3:27 pm

A couple of posts about Serie A

first up it seems that some form of reconciliation has occurred between Serie A and Sky Italia - the litigation has been dropped and Sky now have the secondary rights package at a higher price than was initially being suggested - in all it results in a 5% drop in the domestic rights for the coming cycle on a par with the Bundesliga and the Premier League last time round - from SportsProMedia

Serie A and Sky agree ‘€262.5m’ deal for secondary rights contract
Broadcast partnership signed on condition of pay-TV network dropping its legal challenge.

Posted: May 17 2021By: Tom Bassam

- Sky set to pay Serie A €85m for the 2021/22 season, rising to €87.5m and €90m respectively for the deal’s final two years
- Serie A will bring in around €927.5m annually for its domestic rights in new cycle, down from current €973m per year

Pay-TV broadcaster Sky Italia has acquired Serie A’s final live domestic broadcast package in a deal worth a reported €262.5 million (US$318.7 million) over three years.

Kicking off from the 2021/22 season and running until the end of the 2023/24 campaign, the Comcast-owned network has secured co-exclusive rights to 114 Serie A matches per season. The broadcaster will air three fixtures per round in the Saturday evening, Sunday early afternoon and Monday evening slots.

Italian agency Ansa reports that 16 of Serie A’s 20 clubs voted in favour of the contract on 14th May. Italian media report that the breakdown of Sky’s rights fee is €85 million (US$103.2 million) for 2021/22, rising to €87.5 million (US$106.2 million) and €90 million (US$109.2 million), respectively, for the final two years of the deal.

Coupled with DAZN’s €840 million (US$1.01 billion) per season contract, which covers the main package of seven exclusive games per round and the co-exclusive rights to three matches, Serie A will receive around €927.5 million (US$1.13 billion) from its domestic broadcasters over the next three seasons. Serie A’s expiring domestic rights deals with Sky and DAZN are worth €973 million (US$1.18 billion) per year.

Serie A said that finalising the agreement for the secondary package was dependent on Sky dropping the legal action concerning the original rights deal with DAZN that was lodged with a Milan court last month. Sky confirmed it was dropping the appeal on 14th May.

Without the main Serie A package, Sky last month moved for non-exclusive domestic broadcast rights to the second-tier Serie B. The contract covering the 2021/22 to 2023/24 rights cycle is for all matches across both linear and digital platforms.

Elsewhere, DAZN has bolstered its offering in Germany and Austria by signing a long-term renewal of its exclusive live broadcast partnership with Spanish soccer’s top-flight La Liga. That deal covers all La Liga matches until the end of the 2025/26 season.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 18, 2021 3:33 pm

Second up - having following foul of BeIN Sport over their perceived uncooperative approach to piracy (like the Bundesliga) Serie A appear to be taking the issue much more seriously if this no deal with Google to tackle the issue is anything to go by - from SportsBusiness

Lega Serie A ups piracy battle with Google tie-up
SportBusiness Staff
May 17, 2021

Lega Serie A, organising body of the top division of Italian club football, has said it will soon reach a level of protection against broadcast piracy that is “unique in the world” after striking an agreement with internet company Google.

Following reports from the Lega, Google has removed apps from its Play Store that were found to have been illegally reproducing Serie A content.

The Lega said a new agreement between the two parties will guarantee greater protection of its products on Google platforms, through the use of innovative tools used to monitor copyright infringements.

In announcing the Google deal, the Lega fired another warning against web providers that harbour pirate operations. After obtaining the disabling of hosting on the Worldstream and OVH clouds, the Lega said the main internet provider exploited by online piracy is now Cloudflare, against which it added the “necessary legal actions” have been initiated.

Commenting on the Google deal, Lega Serie A chief executive, Luigi De Siervo said: “We have achieved great results in the fight against piracy, but we cannot let our guard down because organised crime is always finding new ways to damage our sector, to the detriment not only of the rights holders, but also of licensees and fans.

“I thank the police for their support in this battle and DcP (Department of Civil Protection), which has been assisting us for years in the fight against the spread of illegal services. We will soon reach a level of protection unique in the world.”

Fabio Vaccarono, Google vice-president and managing director of Google Italia, added: “The fight against piracy represents a constant commitment for Google, also through the development and continuous improvement of ad hoc technologies and dedicated programs, available to content owners to protect their rights on our platforms.

“Meetings and dialogue with rights-holders are essential for a quality result. The successful collaboration with Lega Serie A is proof of this.”

In 2019, the Italian league body launched its own campaign to raise awareness of piracy directly with fans and viewers, while also speeding up IPTV blocking times by internet service providers and hosting. At the time, Lega Serie A estimated the financial and employment cost of piracy to be over €1bn ($1.2bn) per year.

In June 2020, pay-television broadcaster beIN Sports lifted its Serie A blackout after reaching a financial compensation deal with the Lega and international rights distributor the IMG agency for lost exclusivity due to the activities of pirate service beoutQ.

Coverage of the 2019-20 season, delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, restarted across all 35 territories the Qatar-headquartered broadcaster held Serie A rights. BeIN refused to show any Serie A matches on the season’s restart, amid tensions over the Lega’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, which beIN accuses of supporting beoutQ.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 18, 2021 4:59 pm

Preston North End have taken the decision to end their shirt sponsorship with 32 RED and will replace with a local "non-betting" partner - is it a case of jump before being pushed? - still it is welcome news for me and hopefully one our club is about to follow - from Insider Sport

Preston North End concludes 32Red sponsorship agreement
By Holly Hunt -May 18, 2021

Preston North End has ended its sponsorship agreement with Kindred Group betting brand 32Red, which will be replaced by ‘a local non-betting partner’ to be announced in the coming weeks.

Club owner Trevor Hemmings’ advisor Peter Ridsdale informed supporters of the news in a message issued to the fans, following the conclusion of the 2020/21 English Football League (EFL) season.

Ridsdale expressed gratitude ‘for the income received from the betting sector and for the last four years from 32Red’, having served as the club’s primary sponsor since 2018, but cited the wider backlash surrounding commercial partnerships between the gambling industry and football clubs as the reason to terminate the partnership.

The message published on the official club website read: “Finding good sponsors that work with us and also pay competitive monies is difficult. Some years ago many football clubs were sponsored by alcohol companies and then that sector was prohibited.

“This gap was taken up by betting companies. Indeed if you take away front of shirt sponsors who are directly connected to their club’s owners, by far the greatest balance of front of shirt sponsors in the top two divisions are betting companies.

“We have been grateful for the income received from the betting sector and for the last four years from 32Red. We do however recognise that many of our supporters have grave misgivings in such relationships and of course it means that replica shirts for our supporters aged under 18 cannot be the same as the ones being worn by our first team squad.

“In thanking 32Red and all other sponsors in recent years, I am able to confirm that we will be announcing in the coming weeks a new front of shirt sponsorship deal with a local non-betting partner that we are absolutely delighted with and we believe that our supporters will be too. This will give us plenty of time to get the new logos onto the 2021/22 kit in time for launch in July.”

Earlier in the month, EFL League Two side Forest Green Rovers became the debut English professional football club to join calls for a ban on gambling sponsorships, throwing its weight behind the national campaign, Big Step.

Prohibition of betting sponsorships by sports clubs has been touted as ‘the most likely outcome’ of the overhaul of British gambling legislation, although EFL Chairman, Rick Parry, has warned of the ‘catastrophic’ consequences that a ban could have on lower league clubs.

Scottish Premiership giants Rangers, on the other hand, recently renegotiated terms with 32Red, marking the most lucrative deal in the club’s history. The Kindred-owned brand also maintains deals with Derby County, Cardiff City and Middlesbrough.
Last edited by Chester Perry on Tue May 18, 2021 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14557
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3433 times
Has Liked: 6338 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 18, 2021 5:10 pm

Well done Preston.
This user liked this post: longsidepies

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

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by frankinwales » Tue May 18, 2021 5:49 pm

I recall City fans very quickly labelling us amongst the " hateful 8 " when we opposed their plans recently.

I too now detest them.


Up the Clarets,.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Tue May 18, 2021 6:19 pm

John Nicolson laments the Premier League's new government sanctioned domestic broadcast deal amid pointing out why it makes absolute sense for them in his column for Football365

Rollover TV deal is bad for everyone but Premier League
Date published: Monday 17th May 2021 8:41 - John Nicholson

It didn’t make a big splash in the papers. It wasn’t big headline news. But it happened all the same.

Last week the government approved the Premier League’s rollover of the existing TV deal for three years.

Unless you’ve been following this issue closely, it probably went under your radar, but it was a quite profoundly terrible deal for football.

The first important thing to note is how a government that supposedly believes in the free market simply waved through a Soviet-style stitch-up, instead of insisting the broadcast rights were put out to tender. There may yet be legal repercussions.

But while this was typically hypocritical for this lying bunch of inadequates, and while it has surprised many who thought that there would be other more modern streaming solutions to broadcasting football, it nonetheless tells us much about the economics and politics of broadcasting football in 2021.

Whether other broadcasters or platforms even wanted to bid for the rights isn’t clear. There was lots of talk, but very little action from the likes of Facebook, Google etc, though DAZN is considering a legal protest, so we can assume they might have put their toe into the polluted Premier League waters. However, there was certainly no big bid from any of these in the pipeline. We know this because the Premier League would have grabbed it immediately.

Because the league is great at selling itself as big and important, we tend to think it is very desirable to broadcasters. But even if we accept that was once true – which is contestable – is it true anymore? Savvy broadcasters have seen through the league’s self-serving PR and know that buying the rights at the current levels guarantees you will lose money on every single game and end up in the red to the tune of billions.

To the digital giants, football is but a pea to a pumpkin, not financially significant enough to commit much time and money to.

Others suggested clubs will take broadcasting rights into their own hands and stream their own games (good luck doing that in my area with its nine meg of broadband). While there’s a logic to this, it fails to understand that it isn’t matched by the club’s desire or ability to do so. Their preferred option is to get a lot of money from a broadcaster and not have to do anything for it, other than open the gates for Sky or BT Sport to come in.

To stream their own games would involve extensive logistics, costs and most important of all, would not guarantee a level of income. More than that, while it might be okay for Manchester United and Liverpool, others would likely lose a lot of income.

A club that might get 30,000 in the stadium would need to get 300,000 viewers paying £10 per head just to roughly gross the same money they currently get per game. Reduce the cost to £5 and that means you’ve got to get 600,000 paying. Is that likely? Even if it is, you’re still no better off and have had to become a part-time broadcaster.

The Big Six could possibly get the viewer numbers but – having **** the super league bed – cannot now go it alone with a separate broadcast deal, not least as it contravenes Premier League collective bargaining rules.

But why have Sky and BT Sport and Amazon agreed to pay the same money when they know it is not worth that money and that they didn’t have to? It is initially puzzling but I think it can be explained.

Let’s discount Amazon in this discussion. Their involvement is a piddling 90 million quid over three years for 20 games. That £4.5 million per game still vastly over-rates the commercial value of those matches, but will be looked on with envy by the other two as they hand over around £9 million per game.

Amazon is just ******* around at the edge of this and is not a serious player. They currently boast $830,000 in revenue per minute, yes per minute, so have no need for something as small and weedy and relatively unpopular as the Premier League to broadcast. They earned that £90 million in under two hours and are just using it as ad spend to boost Prime subscriptions. They won’t release any viewer figures, so we must assume they are terrible and would be laughed at in the court of public opinion. Their long-term commitment to the sport is non-existent.

BT Sport is ‘seeking a strategic partner for the pay-TV business’. In non-****** language, this means they need someone to buy their TV output who can afford to absorb the massive losses they’re making on football, currently an impressive estimated £2bn.

They want out but there are no buyers so far. They probably reason that if they stay in the game for three more years, they can amortise some of the losses and have a chance of cauterising the rest of them if they can agree some sort of deal with this possibly mythical strategic partner. If they jump ship now, they’ve lost any hope of reducing the losses, but this is the last time they’ll be involved. BT Sport has failed. It’s been conned into thinking the Premier League has a popularity commensurate with the fees they paid. It doesn’t. It never has.

That just leaves Sky. Sky is owned by Comcast and they’re apparently reducing commitment to live sports rights, which might be bad news in the long run for Sky’s football coverage, but at this point, at least in the UK, so much of their self-identity is tied up with Premier League broadcasting, having been in at the start, and having wholly normalised the concept of paying to watch football to such an extent that people defend the broadcaster’s right to subject the game to economic apartheid, that it can’t now let it go. It’d look weak. It looks like they’re not as important to the sporting culture of the nation as they sell themselves to be.

The league is their virility symbol and the games are often the most popular programmes on a network where its most viewed shows pull in around 700,000 in total.

While that doesn’t even touch the sides of that nine million quid spent per game, it’s enough popularity, by their standards, to justify their involvement for three more years. Despite once again massively overpaying, it was a painless extension, paid for by the profitable non-football part of the business. But if BT Sport is two billion in the hole, Sky – while more popular – cannot be that far behind and there’s only so long its executives are going to sign off on the losses.

We are in a very odd, perverted situation where the game at the top is replete with money, despite always being unprofitable for broadcasters for the entirety of its lifetime. It’s like being paid to keep your shop open, even though you can’t attract enough paying customers to make a profit. That it has sold itself for so long as somehow at the thrusting apex of free market capitalism is bizarre and is not related to the facts. Rather, it looks more like it’s on welfare.

The caveat for this deal to happen is an extra £100million for the pyramid below the Championship. Or put another way, if it was divided up evenly (it won’t be) it’d be an extra £469,000 per season for each of the 71 clubs in League 1, 2 and National League. A desultory amount for many.

Parachute payments remain, distorting and warping the Championship, prompting an EFL spokesperson to say that “clubs spending 107% of turnover on wages, £300m of losses, £380m of owner funding and £1.1bn of debt is neither profitable nor sustainable”. But then, the Premier League doesn’t give a damn about any of that. It doesn’t even believe it should be paying any money to anyone outside its own shores and wouldn’t be if it had its way. It is utterly reliant on handouts from non-profitable broadcasters to prop up its own ridiculous largesse and doesn’t like sharing.

So Championship clubs are left trying to compete with clubs in receipt of £42million parachute payments with the £4.5million over three years in solidarity payments they get from the top flight. They just hope that relegated clubs are so badly run that they waste the money. To cure this disease, the Premier League’s income from broadcasters needs to be absolutely destroyed and sadly, this deal puts that off for another three years. Doomsday has been put on hold.

This rollover perpetuates the same deal and all the same problems. It offers no solutions, and seems happy enough that the Premier League is still the big ugly bull breaking all the really valuable china in the shop, while defecating up the walls.

The deal is bad for football and has sold the health of the game down the river in order to keep paying ridiculous wages to players who would play for much less, but still loads, if much less, but still loads, was all that was on offer. The finances of football in this country are badly broken.

A judgement day is coming, but just not yet. It has three more years in the UK to pretend to us and itself that it is wildly successful as a television product. We should not be fooled.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed May 19, 2021 1:34 am

FIFA President Gianni Infantino is at it again - I am not sure if this is just an act of distraction or a power play negotiating tactic with the confederations particularly those of Europe and South America - he has gotten his mates at the Saudi FA to propose that the World Cup be played every 2 years (so forget your Confederation Championships etc - @TariqPanja with a thread on the matter

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 8729131012

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10903 times
Has Liked: 5582 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Vegas Claret » Wed May 19, 2021 2:25 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed May 19, 2021 1:34 am
FIFA President Gianni Infantino is at it again - I am not sure if this is just an act of distraction or a power play negotiating tactic with the confederations particularly those of Europe and South America - he has gotten his mates at the Saudi FA to propose that the World Cup be played every 2 years (so forget your Confederation Championships etc - @TariqPanja with a thread on the matter

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 8729131012
doubles the chances of Southgate getting the boot so I'm all for it

#Southgateout

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

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by frankinwales » Wed May 19, 2021 7:36 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 6:19 pm
John Nicolson laments the Premier League's new government sanctioned domestic broadcast deal amid pointing out why it makes absolute sense for them in his column for Football365

Rollover TV deal is bad for everyone but Premier League
Date published: Monday 17th May 2021 8:41 - John Nicholson

It didn’t make a big splash in the papers. It wasn’t big headline news. But it happened all the same.

Last week the government approved the Premier League’s rollover of the existing TV deal for three years.

Unless you’ve been following this issue closely, it probably went under your radar, but it was a quite profoundly terrible deal for football.

The first important thing to note is how a government that supposedly believes in the free market simply waved through a Soviet-style stitch-up, instead of insisting the broadcast rights were put out to tender. There may yet be legal repercussions.

But while this was typically hypocritical for this lying bunch of inadequates, and while it has surprised many who thought that there would be other more modern streaming solutions to broadcasting football, it nonetheless tells us much about the economics and politics of broadcasting football in 2021.

Whether other broadcasters or platforms even wanted to bid for the rights isn’t clear. There was lots of talk, but very little action from the likes of Facebook, Google etc, though DAZN is considering a legal protest, so we can assume they might have put their toe into the polluted Premier League waters. However, there was certainly no big bid from any of these in the pipeline. We know this because the Premier League would have grabbed it immediately.

Because the league is great at selling itself as big and important, we tend to think it is very desirable to broadcasters. But even if we accept that was once true – which is contestable – is it true anymore? Savvy broadcasters have seen through the league’s self-serving PR and know that buying the rights at the current levels guarantees you will lose money on every single game and end up in the red to the tune of billions.

To the digital giants, football is but a pea to a pumpkin, not financially significant enough to commit much time and money to.

Others suggested clubs will take broadcasting rights into their own hands and stream their own games (good luck doing that in my area with its nine meg of broadband). While there’s a logic to this, it fails to understand that it isn’t matched by the club’s desire or ability to do so. Their preferred option is to get a lot of money from a broadcaster and not have to do anything for it, other than open the gates for Sky or BT Sport to come in.

To stream their own games would involve extensive logistics, costs and most important of all, would not guarantee a level of income. More than that, while it might be okay for Manchester United and Liverpool, others would likely lose a lot of income.

A club that might get 30,000 in the stadium would need to get 300,000 viewers paying £10 per head just to roughly gross the same money they currently get per game. Reduce the cost to £5 and that means you’ve got to get 600,000 paying. Is that likely? Even if it is, you’re still no better off and have had to become a part-time broadcaster.

The Big Six could possibly get the viewer numbers but – having **** the super league bed – cannot now go it alone with a separate broadcast deal, not least as it contravenes Premier League collective bargaining rules.

But why have Sky and BT Sport and Amazon agreed to pay the same money when they know it is not worth that money and that they didn’t have to? It is initially puzzling but I think it can be explained.

Let’s discount Amazon in this discussion. Their involvement is a piddling 90 million quid over three years for 20 games. That £4.5 million per game still vastly over-rates the commercial value of those matches, but will be looked on with envy by the other two as they hand over around £9 million per game.

Amazon is just ******* around at the edge of this and is not a serious player. They currently boast $830,000 in revenue per minute, yes per minute, so have no need for something as small and weedy and relatively unpopular as the Premier League to broadcast. They earned that £90 million in under two hours and are just using it as ad spend to boost Prime subscriptions. They won’t release any viewer figures, so we must assume they are terrible and would be laughed at in the court of public opinion. Their long-term commitment to the sport is non-existent.

BT Sport is ‘seeking a strategic partner for the pay-TV business’. In non-****** language, this means they need someone to buy their TV output who can afford to absorb the massive losses they’re making on football, currently an impressive estimated £2bn.

They want out but there are no buyers so far. They probably reason that if they stay in the game for three more years, they can amortise some of the losses and have a chance of cauterising the rest of them if they can agree some sort of deal with this possibly mythical strategic partner. If they jump ship now, they’ve lost any hope of reducing the losses, but this is the last time they’ll be involved. BT Sport has failed. It’s been conned into thinking the Premier League has a popularity commensurate with the fees they paid. It doesn’t. It never has.

That just leaves Sky. Sky is owned by Comcast and they’re apparently reducing commitment to live sports rights, which might be bad news in the long run for Sky’s football coverage, but at this point, at least in the UK, so much of their self-identity is tied up with Premier League broadcasting, having been in at the start, and having wholly normalised the concept of paying to watch football to such an extent that people defend the broadcaster’s right to subject the game to economic apartheid, that it can’t now let it go. It’d look weak. It looks like they’re not as important to the sporting culture of the nation as they sell themselves to be.

The league is their virility symbol and the games are often the most popular programmes on a network where its most viewed shows pull in around 700,000 in total.

While that doesn’t even touch the sides of that nine million quid spent per game, it’s enough popularity, by their standards, to justify their involvement for three more years. Despite once again massively overpaying, it was a painless extension, paid for by the profitable non-football part of the business. But if BT Sport is two billion in the hole, Sky – while more popular – cannot be that far behind and there’s only so long its executives are going to sign off on the losses.

We are in a very odd, perverted situation where the game at the top is replete with money, despite always being unprofitable for broadcasters for the entirety of its lifetime. It’s like being paid to keep your shop open, even though you can’t attract enough paying customers to make a profit. That it has sold itself for so long as somehow at the thrusting apex of free market capitalism is bizarre and is not related to the facts. Rather, it looks more like it’s on welfare.

The caveat for this deal to happen is an extra £100million for the pyramid below the Championship. Or put another way, if it was divided up evenly (it won’t be) it’d be an extra £469,000 per season for each of the 71 clubs in League 1, 2 and National League. A desultory amount for many.

Parachute payments remain, distorting and warping the Championship, prompting an EFL spokesperson to say that “clubs spending 107% of turnover on wages, £300m of losses, £380m of owner funding and £1.1bn of debt is neither profitable nor sustainable”. But then, the Premier League doesn’t give a damn about any of that. It doesn’t even believe it should be paying any money to anyone outside its own shores and wouldn’t be if it had its way. It is utterly reliant on handouts from non-profitable broadcasters to prop up its own ridiculous largesse and doesn’t like sharing.

So Championship clubs are left trying to compete with clubs in receipt of £42million parachute payments with the £4.5million over three years in solidarity payments they get from the top flight. They just hope that relegated clubs are so badly run that they waste the money. To cure this disease, the Premier League’s income from broadcasters needs to be absolutely destroyed and sadly, this deal puts that off for another three years. Doomsday has been put on hold.

This rollover perpetuates the same deal and all the same problems. It offers no solutions, and seems happy enough that the Premier League is still the big ugly bull breaking all the really valuable china in the shop, while defecating up the walls.

The deal is bad for football and has sold the health of the game down the river in order to keep paying ridiculous wages to players who would play for much less, but still loads, if much less, but still loads, was all that was on offer. The finances of football in this country are badly broken.

A judgement day is coming, but just not yet. It has three more years in the UK to pretend to us and itself that it is wildly successful as a television product. We should not be fooled.



I just hope that our finances are in good order in 3 years if the gravy train is coming to a halt.

UP THE CLARETS.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3095 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Football's Magic Money Tree

Post by Chester Perry » Wed May 19, 2021 4:02 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:32 pm
could this be good news for Burnley FC - fans campaign means that The Hut Group - have pulled out of a £200m sponsorship deal with Manchester United claim the Guardian

Manchester United lose £200m training kit deal over fans’ anti-Glazers campaign
The Hut Group pulls out of contract starting in July, sources say
Fans are campaigning for boycott of club’s commercial partners

Exclusive by Jamie Jackson

Sat 8 May 2021 21.48 BST

Manchester United have missed out on a proposed new training kit deal worth £200m over 10 years after the Manchester-based company The Hut Group had concerns about the supporters’ campaign to boycott the club’s commercial partners in protest at the Glazers’ ownership, the Observer understands.

Richard Arnold, United’s group managing director, was told on Friday that THG had pulled out of a contract which was due to start on 1 July.

The branding of Myprotein, a Cheshire firm owned by THG, was due to appear on United’s training kit and replace the branding of AON, sponsors of the club’s Carrington training centre.

Last Sunday’s supporter protest against the Glazers outside Old Trafford led to United’s game with Liverpool being postponed until the coming Thursday. THG, it is understood, was taken aback by the subsequent social media and online backlash against United’s partners.

An anonymous United fans group with the hashtag NOTAPENNYMORE launched an online campaign to boycott the club’s major partners, which include Adidas, TAG Heuer and Cadbury, and wrote an open letter to them vowing to target their products.

It is understood THG, a multibillion pound company with offices near Manchester Airport, was concerned that as a local business it would be targeted by disaffected fans in Greater Manchester.

AON’s agreement expires on 30 June, which means United may struggle to strike a new deal of similar value to that proposed with THG.

The Glazers’ move to join the now defunct European Super League heightened the supporter opposition towards the American family. There was also some disillusionment and embarrassment within the club at senior level about how the ESL breakaway was presented.

Both THG and United declined to comment, with those familiar with the deal at Old Trafford confirming there are no ongoing talks.
It seems that Manchester United fans are doing their best to get the clubs sponsors to drive change at the club - this latest form of activism doesn;t require fans to live local either - imagine in the club really did have the claimed 1 billion + fans around the world and just a tenth of them got involved in this - from SoccerEx

ANTI-GLAZER FAN CAMPAIGN COULD COST MANCHESTER UNITED SPONSORS ‘MILLIONS’
18 MAY 2021 |

Digital analysis of United fans’ #NotAPennyMore campaign suggests online targeting of sponsors’ Google Ads could rack up millions of pounds in online overspend.
Manchester United’s club sponsors could be facing digital advertising bills running into the millions, according to new evidence.

Global brands like Adidas, Chevrolet and Tag Heuer are being dragged into the #NotAPennyMore anti-Glazer fan campaign, which comes off the back of the Glazer’s attempt to become founder members of the failed European Super League.

Now protestors are appealing to fans to click multiple times on any of Manchester United’s 50 listed sponsors’ Google Ads. The action of clicking on the online ads immediately threatens to rack up worrying bills for the club’s sponsors, which one digital specialist says could very easily run into ‘millions of pounds.’

Mediaworks, the future facing digital marketing agency headquartered in the North of England, has been analysing the digital impact of the action from the Manchester United anti-Glazer protesters, which has turned its sights on the club’s commercial partners.

CEO and founder at Mediaworks, Brett Jacobson said: “When looking at the digital evidence, it’s very easy to see how this could very quickly start costing Manchester United’s sponsors a lot of money. This could easily run into sums comfortably into the millions.

“We’ve already seen one major sponsor pull back from a new deal this week and this move by the fans to light the match on some digital dynamite as a means to remove the Glazer family as owners of the club has every possibility of having the desired effect. There could be some very awkward boardroom conversations between United and their sponsors if this plays out as the fans hope.”

Digital specialists at Mediaworks have evidenced more than 51,000 uses of the #NotAPennyMore hashtag on social media platforms, with daily use rocketing 62% to peak at more than 7,000 mentions a day.

At the same time, assessment of Google Trends data suggests that popularity of searches for just five of Manchester United’s key partners – Adidas, Chevrolet, Tag Heuer, Kohler and AON – have doubled in the last 48 hours just in the UK alone.

Using freely available Google Ads data to calculate what that could mean to advertising costs for these brands, Mediaworks says it paints a bleak picture for the marketing budgets of those in the firing line.

Brett Jacobson explained: “We’ve looked at the top end cost per click data for just those five brands, a price they could reasonably expect to be charged by Google for this type of fan activity. Generously assuming that only one quarter of those choosing to look up these sponsors in the last 48 hours decide to click just once on their Google Ads, that could be an eye-watering bill in excess of £1.2m they could be collectively facing this month alone. And that figure could easily skyrocket.

“Manchester United has 50 listed key partners and sponsors that the #NotAPennyMore activists claim they’ll target. As Glazer’s Stateside accountants might be nervously whispering right now, ‘you do the math’.

“With The Hut Group withdrawing from a rumoured £200m, ten year deal to join the list of sponsors for the club for fear of the negative associations, you do fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg for the Glazer’s fan troubles.”

Post Reply