Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, windmillhillred said:

Thanks, really interesting to see this perspective. I take issue with one thing though, the idea that Steve Lansdown has to think about his future. Important to remember how astronomically wealthy he is. His wealth, and you’re right of course that most of it won’t be in cash, is over 50,000 times the average salary in the UK.

 He could foot the wage bill for the club for the rest of his life while still living an incredible lifestyle and having millions to pass onto his family. Of course nobody expects him to do that, and we are all grateful for what he has done for the club. But the reality is that there will be people at the club, like everywhere in society, who are really struggling at the moment. He could prevent that from happening but instead is taking advantage of a scheme paid for by taxpayers (now and for god knows how long into the future) when he has made a conscious decision to become a tax exile. People are right, in my view, to question that.

Yes, I understand the frustration from that point of view of course. And also it's different in England as here we don't have owners but have a lot of government support for sports so the whole thing goes a little a differently (the fury against overpaid football players is the same ? ). But as a horrific example: a very good waterpolo team (leading the league, leading their group in the Champions League) has lost it's main sponsor a week ago, they said they won't finance it anymore and the local goverment withdraw its funding as well. And this week they said they're bankrupt, let all their players go and seized to exist... In 2 weeks time because of this situation. So these are very-very trying times for all and I know professional sport is the less of our concerns right now but I believe watching sports (for those who are used to it weekly) plays a big part of human's mental well-being so I hope it comes back as soon as it can. It means so much for so much people, even just talking about it before and after a game.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps something to consider, under current FFP rules owners can only put in so much money per season, perhaps Lansdown can't pay staff/player wages if he wanted too because it would exceed the amount he can help cover losses for the club given we push the boundaries anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hodge said:

Perhaps something to consider, under current FFP rules owners can only put in so much money per season, perhaps Lansdown can't pay staff/player wages if he wanted too because it would exceed the amount he can help cover losses for the club given we push the boundaries anyway.

Yep this is a good point. I’m not so worried about the players, who will be the bulk of the wage bill - but the staff, especially those on low or moderate pay - and I can’t believe there isn’t a way to help them more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mozo said:

I don't think we want City to be in the middle, we want to be the best, the shining example of how clubs can get their priorities right, and how players can be realistic about their extraordinary wealth.

Yeah tend to agree. Risk as other posters have stated though of players being able to walk away on a free. I still think our approach is middling, but as you say can we do better?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, hodge said:

Perhaps something to consider, under current FFP rules owners can only put in so much money per season, perhaps Lansdown can't pay staff/player wages if he wanted too because it would exceed the amount he can help cover losses for the club given we push the boundaries anyway.

Players will make up the bulk of the wage bill so I'm not sure it holds so well, especially in these times. It'd be interesting to know size of cut that'd cover staff wages for 2-3 months.

Maybe that the gap isn't as big as I think but players wages surely make up the bulk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hodge said:

Perhaps something to consider, under current FFP rules owners can only put in so much money per season, perhaps Lansdown can't pay staff/player wages if he wanted too because it would exceed the amount he can help cover losses for the club given we push the boundaries anyway.

I would imagine that if the extra money being invested was solely to ensure non-playing staff continued to be paid directly from the club and in turn saved the tax payer money then this wouldn’t be subject to FFP. Would be incredibly amazed if not. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, windmillhillred said:

The club have said that this has happened:  pay cuts for staff; deferrals for the players. I’m not criticising the players, but the reality is that the club has taken the decision to protect the interests of players ahead of staff. And that sticks in the throat a little (I’m not blaming the players by the way).

Actually, thinking about it, once you say to one group of staff please keep working with a 20% pay cut it kind of follows that the ones who are furloughed will have the same reduction. Otherwise the ones still working would be mightily cheesed off - they’d be working for less whereas the ones not having to work would still be on full pay.

In terms of the players, of course we don’t know what the terms of the 30% deferral are. It might only be recouped if certain financial conditions are met. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dynamite Red said:

With social distancing likely remaining in place until the end of the year I assume the best we can hope for is next season might be televised behind closed doors.

I imagine it will be the Prem and EFL clubs only, though it may only be the Prem or possibly nothing at all. Depressing.

I don’t think it’s possible to continue behind closed doors, clubs won’t be able to pay wages etc even more the smaller clubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dynamite Red said:

With social distancing likely remaining in place until the end of the year I assume the best we can hope for is next season might be televised behind closed doors.

I imagine it will be the Prem and EFL clubs only, though it may only be the Prem or possibly nothing at all. Depressing.

The season needs to be cancelled - if the proposal is to test the players / coaching staff every so often - how many tests is that being used a week? Whilst I appreciate the clubs will purchase these tests , if available  let the key workers have them and then the general public. Like many I haven’t seen my parents now for several weeks - I would rather I and  then were tested so we can start to move forward and return to some form of normal life.

Football is right now of so little importance. Let’s be honest the only reason clubs are so keen for the season to resume is the £££££££. How would it look if the country is under some form of lockdown or social distancing let football is being played 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hodge said:

Perhaps something to consider, under current FFP rules owners can only put in so much money per season, perhaps Lansdown can't pay staff/player wages if he wanted too because it would exceed the amount he can help cover losses for the club given we push the boundaries anyway.

On the basis of my calculations we have some leeway before FFP becomes an issues for the 3 year period ending this season.

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Players will make up the bulk of the wage bill so I'm not sure it holds so well, especially in these times. It'd be interesting to know size of cut that'd cover staff wages for 2-3 months.

Maybe that the gap isn't as big as I think but players wages surely make up the bulk.

Across Bristol City Holdings (BCFC and Ashton Gate Ltd) the wage bill was £30.6m last season.  Let’s just say it’s risen 10%....so £34m for 19/20 season (£650k per week).

Across the board the club are saving between 20-30% of the wage bill.  Everyone has taken a cut in some shape or form, whether deferred for 3 months, or reduction or furloughed.

That buys the club 3 months to see what happens, what income streams become available going forward, e.g. Robinstv, iFollow, plus any clawback from Sky.  CJRS is likely to be a small percentage of the overall wage bill, but buys time.

7 hours ago, lenred said:

I would imagine that if the extra money being invested was solely to ensure non-playing staff continued to be paid directly from the club and in turn saved the tax payer money then this wouldn’t be subject to FFP. Would be incredibly amazed if not. 

Lots of sense in this until you see how some owners might take advantage of it!!!

As I understand it, each club was asked to submit its costs / expenses for the rest of the season.  I assume this was based on no further income.  You would like to think the EFL could issue a grant to cover or build that into its calculations to keep a level playing field. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

On the basis of my calculations we have some leeway before FFP becomes an issues for the 3 year period ending this season.

Point was if that calculating with lansdown already putting in all he’s allowed to under ffp and a lack of match day revenue, comments for lansdown to be the one paying may not be fair 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, daored said:

The season needs to be cancelled - if the proposal is to test the players / coaching staff every so often - how many tests is that being used a week? Whilst I appreciate the clubs will purchase these tests , if available  let the key workers have them and then the general public. Like many I haven’t seen my parents now for several weeks - I would rather I and  then were tested so we can start to move forward and return to some form of normal life.

Football is right now of so little importance. Let’s be honest the only reason clubs are so keen for the season to resume is the £££££££. How would it look if the country is under some form of lockdown or social distancing let football is being played 

Exactly. People are going to work with little or no protection from the general public who will be getting increasingly frustrated and desperate by this lockdown, but hey we can come home and watch a footie on the tv. It’s madness.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RedM said:

Exactly. People are going to work with little or no protection from the general public who will be getting increasingly frustrated and desperate by this lockdown, but hey we can come home and watch a footie on the tv. It’s madness.

Just been thinking ? ...... if the government changes its approach to masks - how goes that work with playing any sport ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading that champ clubs want any clubs who defer wages to have a transfer ban and when season resumes there loan players must also return. 
Not sure how that’s going to work, but guess it could all be tied to the contract end dates etc. 
 

Be bad news for us if we lose Afobe  Benkovic and Pereria. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Reading that champ clubs want any clubs who defer wages to have a transfer ban and when season resumes there loan players must also return. 
Not sure how that’s going to work, but guess it could all be tied to the contract end dates etc. 
 

Be bad news for us if we lose Afobe  Benkovic and Pereria. 

Unfortunately you can’t argue with it I don’t think.  Those clubs that have ‘taken the hit’ and paid their staff without resolving to taking tax payers money deserve some kind of advantage when this is over imho. Goodness knows how they will work it all out though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, daored said:

Just been thinking ? ...... if the government changes its approach to masks - how goes that work with playing any sport ?

I’d imagine the sportswear giants such as Nike and Adidas will be working on that as we speak. More advertising opportunities for them. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hodge said:

Point was if that calculating with lansdown already putting in all he’s allowed to under ffp and a lack of match day revenue, comments for lansdown to be the one paying may not be fair 

What I’m saying is that SL hasn’t had to underwrite all of his £24m (£8m x 3) yet. There is room imho to pay everyone their full wages for 2-3 months.

However that assumes a restart at some point within the next 2-3 months.

I think the doubt comes from reduced revenues when football does resume....and smoothing the revenue loss by reducing wages. It’s a fine balancing act when the future is unknown. 

1 hour ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Reading that champ clubs want any clubs who defer wages to have a transfer ban and when season resumes there loan players must also return. 
Not sure how that’s going to work, but guess it could all be tied to the contract end dates etc. 
 

Be bad news for us if we lose Afobe  Benkovic and Pereria. 

I think there is a lot of logic to the transfer ban part, but as I see it there won’t even be a transfer window for this to be a factor.

Loans are a different kettle of fish.

Take Afobe, it’s not black and white. From a playing point of view, Stoke might prefer him back.  But can his registration be changed back to Stoke mid-season, outside a window?  If not, they might argue it’s beneficial to weaken City. However they might argue it’s better City are stronger to help beat Stoke’s relegation rivals!!!  So that’s a consideration!

Financially, Stoke would end up having to pay all of Benik’s wages. Currently City are contributing some / all of his wages. Can they afford to bring him back?  Especially if he can’t play!  Do that’s another consideration!!

On the flip, City might want to send him back, ok, unlikely in Afobe’s case...but maybe not in Henriksen’s case.  So, Hull might be the loser in this scenario.

People are throwing new rules out there without consideration of what it might mean in reality or other factors that might mean its unworkable....or work against their club!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, 

I have created a separate forum for this but I am a university student researching how people are remaining connected with each other during the current COVID-19 pandemic, specifically football fans. If you have a spare 15 minutes, please could you follow the link below and fill in the questionnaire. It would really help with my modules assessment.

Here is a link to the forum, where you can find the questionnaire and leave any stories about the fan community at Ashton Gate, for example, friends you have made from watching the games etc. Any that I use for my assessment I will remove your username if you request. 

Thank You! - feel free to ask any questions as well. 

 

Edited by kia
formatting link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What I’m saying is that SL hasn’t had to underwrite all of his £24m (£8m x 3) yet. There is room imho to pay everyone their full wages for 2-3 months.

However that assumes a restart at some point within the next 2-3 months.

I think the doubt comes from reduced revenues when football does resume....and smoothing the revenue loss by reducing wages. It’s a fine balancing act when the future is unknown. 

I think there is a lot of logic to the transfer ban part, but as I see it there won’t even be a transfer window for this to be a factor.

Loans are a different kettle of fish.

Take Afobe, it’s not black and white. From a playing point of view, Stoke might prefer him back.  But can his registration be changed back to Stoke mid-season, outside a window?  If not, they might argue it’s beneficial to weaken City. However they might argue it’s better City are stronger to help beat Stoke’s relegation rivals!!!  So that’s a consideration!

Financially, Stoke would end up having to pay all of Benik’s wages. Currently City are contributing some / all of his wages. Can they afford to bring him back?  Especially if he can’t play!  Do that’s another consideration!!

On the flip, City might want to send him back, ok, unlikely in Afobe’s case...but maybe not in Henriksen’s case.  So, Hull might be the loser in this scenario.

People are throwing new rules out there without consideration of what it might mean in reality or other factors that might mean its unworkable....or work against their club!

I think at the moment it is turning into one big mess. Clubs wanting certain things against other clubs,  wanting rules changed, no one knowing what’s going to happen next.

I feel even though I think it may hurt clubs in L1 and L2 that it’s time to say enough is enough and this season is null and void.  Start afresh whenever 20/21 season is able to go. 
 

Every league now in this country playing men’s football has called it quits now apart from the PL and EFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

I feel even though I think it may hurt clubs in L1 and L2 that it’s time to say enough is enough and this season is null and void.  Start afresh whenever 20/21 season is able to go. 
 

Every league now in this country playing men’s football has called it quits now apart from the PL and EFL.

IF we reached a point where no more games this season could be played I would rather a vote to finish the season as is rather than null and void. If you look at the premier league table, do Spurs deserve another season of champions league football (if there is one) over Leicester being 10 points behind? Do Arsenal deserve another season of Europa league over Wolves/Sheffield Utd? Do Norwich deserve another season of premier league riches when they're adrift at the bottom of the table, in league 1 would Bolton deserve to go through another season of a -12 points deficit or allow them a season in league 2 level on points. leagues like Scotland and National league aren't null and voiding they're calling as is, allow the last several months of sport to still mean something, whether it means ppg calculations or tables as they are.

Also the non leagues have had to end as they can't afford to wait it out, l2/l1 may not be able to but championship and prem can afford to wait it out, look abroad to other countries have their domestic leagues called it quits yet? Its not like English leagues are different.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hodge said:

IF we reached a point where no more games this season could be played I would rather a vote to finish the season as is rather than null and void. If you look at the premier league table, do Spurs deserve another season of champions league football (if there is one) over Leicester being 10 points behind? Do Arsenal deserve another season of Europa league over Wolves/Sheffield Utd? Do Norwich deserve another season of premier league riches when they're adrift at the bottom of the table, in league 1 would Bolton deserve to go through another season of a -12 points deficit or allow them a season in league 2 level on points. leagues like Scotland and National league aren't null and voiding they're calling as is, allow the last several months of sport to still mean something, whether it means ppg calculations or tables as they are.

Also the non leagues have had to end as they can't afford to wait it out, l2/l1 may not be able to but championship and prem can afford to wait it out, look abroad to other countries have their domestic leagues called it quits yet? Its not like English leagues are different.

Non league ended because they were told they had to, had no say in the matter, below NL level.
 

With Nicola Sturgeon saying mass gatherings and groups being one of the last things lifted Chris Whitey saying social distancing for foreseeable future we can’t just go on forever waiting. Holland and Belgium have so far ended there seasons, Scotland have as well just deciding how to finish or restructure.

You can’t say L1 and L2 finish and Champ PL can how is that fair on clubs top of the table in L1. I’m sure champ clubs will say why should we go down if they are not playing to go up. You have Accrington saying if they played rest of there games behind closed doors it will basically finish them off along with other clubs.

Dont mind if they end the season with positions as they are and say that’s it. Should be a level playing field for everyone and not we have money we can do what we want. Clubs are not interested in integrity of the leagues at PL champ level it’s all about money and there selfishness now. Same with UEFA constantly moving dates back for the CL final so they can get there money. 

 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Non league ended because they were told they had to, had no say in the matter, below NL level.
 

With Nicola Sturgeon saying mass gatherings and groups being one of the last things lifted Chris Whitey saying social distancing for foreseeable future we can’t just go on forever waiting. Holland and Belgium have so far ended there seasons, Scotland have as well just deciding how to finish or restructure.

You can’t say L1 and L2 finish and Champ PL can how is that fair on clubs top of the table in L1. I’m sure champ clubs will say why should we go down if they are not playing to go up. You have Accrington saying if they played rest of there games behind closed doors it will basically finish them off along with other clubs.

Dont mind if they end the season with positions as they are and say that’s it. Should be a level playing field for everyone and not we have money we can do what we want. Clubs are not interested in integrity of the leagues at PL champ level it’s all about money and there selfishness now. Same with UEFA constantly moving dates back for the CL final so they can get there money. 

 

Depends when lockdown is lifted what social distancing measures remain and the definition of 'mass gathering', some will have to be relaxed or a lot of people still won't be able to return to work, if this extent allows then games can be played behind closed doors as a lot of people working at a football game (say approx 100) don't need to come in contact with each other. Dutch league looks over because their government specifically banned events which includes sport until September 1st, it wasn't the leagues decision.

Personal opinion would be that the premier league should help all clubs in the league see this through without repayment if we really are 'all in this together'. The league makes by far more then enough to help, based on an website with an educated guess of prize money break down for this season if you took 1% of each clubs proposed prize money you'd have over £24,000,000, so a few percent and you could see every l1/l2 club through this period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hodge said:

IF we reached a point where no more games this season could be played I would rather a vote to finish the season as is rather than null and void. If you look at the premier league table, do Spurs deserve another season of champions league football (if there is one) over Leicester being 10 points behind? Do Arsenal deserve another season of Europa league over Wolves/Sheffield Utd? Do Norwich deserve another season of premier league riches when they're adrift at the bottom of the table, in league 1 would Bolton deserve to go through another season of a -12 points deficit or allow them a season in league 2 level on points. leagues like Scotland and National league aren't null and voiding they're calling as is, allow the last several months of sport to still mean something, whether it means ppg calculations or tables as they are.

Also the non leagues have had to end as they can't afford to wait it out, l2/l1 may not be able to but championship and prem can afford to wait it out, look abroad to other countries have their domestic leagues called it quits yet? Its not like English leagues are different.

You realise if the season was rerun, Norwich for example wouldn't get another season of riches?

I really couldn't see broadcasters a) Being willing to and b) Being able to pay out another £100m per club off the back of eg a voided season.

That money or the appropriate % of money due would be clawed back one way or the other.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...