Accrington Chairman on twitter (5 Viewers)

[Liquid Gold]

Here's a thought (not sure if it's a good one, you tell me...)

The home team should get the revenue for all Streams of a BCD game...

That way, Home teams would benefit from the additional revenue much as if they weren't BCD.

How about they get the revenue up to what their away end can hold? Why should accrington get a possible 10k subscriptions for a game that they would only have fit 900 away fans in to.

 

---

[Grendel]

Hardly anyone would subscribe and clubs can’t budget for transfers on this

 

[chiefdave]

Players contracts actually don’t need to be honoured

Interesting, wasn't aware of that provision. How do clubs walk away from contracts without breaking article 16, let alone leaving themselves open to legal action from the player in question?

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

Behind closed doors games will kill off a lot of clubs us included it’s bizarre people think it’s a solution

The trouble is the way it is looking BCD games will be here until maybe Christmas and beyond. It will frankly be ridiculous if everyone else has to return to work, but footballers don't because their clubs don't want to pay their wages. I don't see the Government allowing that to happen, and that they will probably take away the furlough option from them if it does. Presuming this season is cancelled, what happens in September? Does the league just cancel the 2020/21 season beyond the Championship? Clubs are going to have to think outside the box to survive this, and I don't see not playing as being one of those options. It is inevitable that there will be a period where games will be played BCD, and in the short term teams will have to maximise revenue from ifollow and renegotiate/ cancel contracts, or agree deferred salary payments etc.

 

[chiefdave]

The trouble is the way it is looking BCD games will be here until maybe Christmas and beyond. It will frankly be ridiculous if everyone else has to return to work, but footballers don't because their clubs don't want to pay their wages.

Would also be a PR problem. If everyone else is being pushed back to work and you've got rich footballers refusing to play that doesn't look good. Even at L1 level the average weekly wage is a lot higher than many people who are being told they should be back at work.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

Would also be a PR problem. If everyone else is being pushed back to work and you've got rich footballers refusing to play that doesn't look good. Even at L1 level the average weekly wage is a lot higher than many people who are being told they should be back at work.

It will be interesting to see what level of wages are offered by clubs in the contract renewals, etc. There will have to be a reduction in wages at levels outside of the Premier league where the broadcast revenues are massive, if clubs are to survive.
Clubs who own and deliver a high quality steaming services, without having to pay significant sums to external partners could be best placed to reduce their risk. It'll be interesting to see how clubs react to this new environment

 

[Grendel]

Interesting, wasn't aware of that provision. How do clubs walk away from contracts without breaking article 16, let alone leaving themselves open to legal action from the player in question?

Easily - they go to administration and cancel all contracts - championship clubs have already discussed the option if simultaneously going into admin to void all player contracts

 

[chiefdave]

Easily - they go to administration and cancel all contracts - championship clubs have already discussed the option if simultaneously going into admin to void all player contracts

Wouldn't that just mean the EFL doing what they did to us? Not letting clubs back in, even without a CVA, until they agree to pay football creditors?

 

[Grendel]

Wouldn't that just mean the EFL doing what they did to us? Not letting clubs back in, even without a CVA, until they agree to pay football creditors?

What if every single club in a league did it? You don’t seem to comprehend that many businesses are better not opening - you do realise most clubs will go bankrupt if no fans are there and players are being paid?

Non league will just cease to exist

 

[Grendel]

Media: Championship club owners consider group administration to stave off financial disaster

 

[fernandopartridge]

They don't have to accept anything. Employment law hasn't gone out the window, it's a change in contact terms they'd have to accept. Players are unlikely to be accepting wage cuts of 75%, at best part of their salary will be deferred. There's also a moral issue, although this is football so probably not being considered. The implication is that clubs will save money by letting player contracts expire and no signing player as they usually would over the summer.

Not playing games doesn't eliminate all costs. Clubs still have to pay in the region o 75% of player salaries (going off average L1 wages), staff for social media, ground maintenance etc will still be working. How many non-playing staff are here at a club like ours that are currently furloughed? Can't imagine we've got a huge number of staff at the best of times.

No games means no TV & radio money, no streaming money, no sponsorship, no advertising. There will be nothing coming in. So the question becomes what are the additional costs of staging matches and how does that compare to the revenue it would bring in.

You can't be furloughed and receiving most of your salary, I'm not sure what you're on about here Dave if I'm honest. Players under furlough are basically laid off so would otherwise get nothing.

 

[chiefdave]

What if every single club in a league did it? You don’t seem to comprehend that many businesses are better not opening - you do realise most clubs will go bankrupt if no fans are there and players are being paid?

Non league will just cease to exist

I do comprehend the financial issues for clubs but I'm not convinced the 'take your ball and go home' approach will work, it seems an empty threat to try and get their way. That plan relies on the PFA, EFL and FA standing by passively.

Also means owners accepting the risk of losing ownership, writing off millions if not tens of millions (particularly in the Championship), possibility of assets being sold to pay creditors, players moving to other clubs with no fee being received etc

Would also require every club to agree, they're struggling to agree on anything so it seems unlikely they'd get unanimous agreement across the league for something like this.

 

[chiefdave]

You can't be furloughed and receiving most of your salary, I'm not sure what you're on about here Dave if I'm honest. Players under furlough are basically laid off so would otherwise get nothing.

Maybe I've got it wrong but I was under the impression that unless furlough was already covered in your employment contract it will be a change of contract terms.

Employers can't dictate those changes, they have to be done by agreement. Now for me and you there's little option, if we say no there's a good chance we'll be made redundant and receive the minimum permissible under current regulations. However if a player contract is terminated they are still owned the balance, ie the wages owed for the rest of the contract.

So lets say you're a player on the average L1 wage and your club is telling you they want to furlough you for six months. That's £65K in salary. Under furlough the employer would receive £15K towards the salary. Do you really think players are agreeing to that level of pay cut, not deferral, knowing that if they refuse that offer they are due the full £65K?

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

What if every single club in a league did it? You don’t seem to comprehend that many businesses are better not opening - you do realise most clubs will go bankrupt if no fans are there and players are being paid?

Non league will just cease to exist

That is an interesting scenario and an option, but would they all do it? I suspect at least one club would think it’s an ideal opportunity to start the season with a significant points advantage.
Assuming that a point deduction is implemented.
If we are promoted it would assist us in ensuring our survival

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

Not a chance that every club would agree to joint administration, and no club should go down that route unless its absolutely necessary. I think its morally abhorrent to use it as a deliberate tactic to avoid paying your debts, particularly with the negative knock on effect that can have on small businesses and people's employment.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Maybe I've got it wrong but I was under the impression that unless furlough was already covered in your employment contract it will be a change of contract terms.

Employers can't dictate those changes, they have to be done by agreement. Now for me and you there's little option, if we say no there's a good chance we'll be made redundant and receive the minimum permissible under current regulations. However if a player contract is terminated they are still owned the balance, ie the wages owed for the rest of the contract.

So lets say you're a player on the average L1 wage and your club is telling you they want to furlough you for six months. That's £65K in salary. Under furlough the employer would receive £15K towards the salary. Do you really think players are agreeing to that level of pay cut, not deferral, knowing that if they refuse that offer they are due the full £65K?

Players are no different to any other employee. They can be 'due' all they like, if the club has no income it won't ever pay it. The club has offered to pay the shortfall between the £2500 a month and each player's salary. However, if a player did not accept that then the club can make them redundant, on the basis that there is no role for them whilst there are no games and no income to pay with.

The players have all accepted being on the furlough scheme so it's moot. Now that is the case it would be stupid of the club to ask players back to work to play BCD as the clubs will suddenly be faced with an additional bill of up to £2500 per employee x employees furloughed that are re-engaged. I just can't see the income being sufficient to cover this. All companies are struggling so it's a buyer's market in relation to advertising.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not a chance that every club would agree to joint administration, and no club should go down that route unless its absolutely necessary. I think its morally abhorrent to use it as a deliberate tactic to avoid paying your debts, particularly with the negative knock on effect that can have on small businesses and people's employment.

It might be a domino effect because if one or two do it and they've bought players from other clubs, those clubs then may not be receiving their full amount due (possibly only a tiny fraction of it) which will put extra financial burden on those clubs and they may not longer be able to survive. So they go the same route and that has a knock on on further clubs and so on.

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

It might be a domino effect because if one or two do it and they've bought players from other clubs, those clubs then may not be receiving their full amount due (possibly only a tiny fraction of it) which will put extra financial burden on those clubs and they may not longer be able to survive. So they go the same route and that has a knock on on further clubs and so on.

The football administration rules are that football creditors have to be paid in full, precisely to prevent the outcome you set out, and all payments have to be made in full before clubs can retake their place in the league. It's businesses outside the football bubble that generally lose out.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The football administration rules are that football creditors have to be paid in full, precisely to prevent the outcome you set out, and all payments have to be made in full before clubs can retake their place in the league. It's businesses outside the football bubble that generally lose out.

If the money ain't there to pay them tough.

That's before we get onto how the fuck they're even allowed to get away with the rule. Law states trade creditors are in the bottom rung for payment. Other football clubs are trade creditors. Get rid of this football creditors rule and you'd see far more frugal spending on transfer fees.

 

[chiefdave]

If the money ain't there to pay them tough.

Wouldn't the same rules that have been used previously apply, most recently with Bury?

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

If the money ain't there to pay them tough.

That's before we get onto how the fuck they're even allowed to get away with the rule. Law states trade creditors are in the bottom rung for payment. Other football clubs are trade creditors. Get rid of this football creditors rule and you'd see far more frugal spending on transfer fees.

.....but then those teams will lose their place in the league!! They are the current rules in place. At the moment, whether you agree its fair or not football creditors have to be paid in full.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

.....but then those teams will lose their place in the league!! They are the current rules in place. At the moment, whether you agree its fair or not football creditors have to be paid in full.

So how do teams that are tens of millions or more in debt find that money? If they can I argue that they don't need admin, just financial restructuring.

This really needs challenging properly though. If, say, the regulatory body of gas fitters said all gas trade creditors had to be paid in full do you reckon they'd get away with it in the courts? Of course not. So why should football be different? If you owe a club like Man City £10m on a transfer fee that has to be paid in full but the local businessman who you owe £50k to and who desperately needs the cash to stay afloat gets nothing because Man City go first.

The league has the right to kick teams out for none payment, but who has the right to tell the football league they no longer have the right to administer football in this country because their articles of association specifically break the law of the land? Order them to drop the football league creditors or someone else will be given it who will. It's about time someone played hardball for the long term good of the game.

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

I don't disagree with your sentiments, just trying to put your points into context of the situation as it is. Your first line sums it up really. No one should go into administration unless it is totally necessary. The idea that every club does so as a tactical ruse is something that is completely wrong, and as a club that has recently been in administration we would stand to lose more than most by facing a more stringent penalty than those entering administration for the first time.

Your second two paragraphs are frankly bluster, and relate to your idealogical opposition to the situation as it is now. The reality is that the rules in place currently allow football clubs to be paid all money owing them, precisely to prevent the domino effect you referred to earlier, regardless of whether you or I think that is right.

 

[RegTheDonk]

Not a chance that every club would agree to joint administration, and no club should go down that route unless its absolutely necessary. I think its morally abhorrent to use it as a deliberate tactic to avoid paying your debts, particularly with the negative knock on effect that can have on small businesses and people's employment.

The 3 coming down from the PL with parachute payments would be well sorted to go straight back up. Just let the rest of them default.