Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
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.
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.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.
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?Players contracts actually don’t need to be honoured
Behind closed doors games will kill off a lot of clubs us included it’s bizarre people think it’s a solution
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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?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?
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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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
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?
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.
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.
Wouldn't the same rules that have been used previously apply, most recently with Bury?If the money ain't there to pay them tough.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?