Premier League to bail out EFL clubs

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

2 hours ago, Loco Rojo said:

So what's the catch? 

Don't think there is a catch. I think they did this thru self interest. If they hadn't and more than a couple of clubs had gone under - imagine if 5+ clubs had gone bust! - there would have been calls for a windfall tax or government regulation. They'll pay a lot to head that off.  And they do actually benefit from a thriving or at least functioning  pyramid. They've just discovered they're going to have to buy more British trained young players and they can't train them all themselves.

And the package doesn't cost that much. £3m per PL club if all the grants and loans get drawn down?

[Hxj]

I think that we are overly worrying about the loans, £8 million won't pay for much if you include wages, other employment costs and all the fees involved.

All the loans do is put cheap cash into the clubs, as they are loans they won't count towards FFP limits as income but any spending will.  They are not designed to dig clubs out of FFP issues, they are designed to stop clubs going bust.

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

10 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

Will a reset not just allow clubs to flout the rules again?

When I say Financial reset, I don’t mean reset FFP, I mean reset their financing and budgeting to the new norm....lower income streams, prudent forecasting, etc.

[Tipps69]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

When I say Financial reset, I don’t mean reset FFP, I mean reset their financing and budgeting to the new norm....lower income streams, prudent forecasting, etc.

Ah ok, so clubs resetting rather than the EFL? But it will require the EFL to put things in place sooner rather than later to stop clubs going back to the ‘old norm’.

[Davefevs]

Yep, and even from a point of bringing f/w solidarity payments will cause a change to their future forecasting.

I hope the EFL tighten things up too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

Brilliant, now let’s just hope a few certain clubs don’t get creative with their accounting again!! And that whoever is controlling this fund does just that & controls it!

I’m still very sceptical.

I know what you mean, definitely some grounds to be sceptical.

I don't see how it could be put through as profit though, so even if it boosts income or financing at least, FFP/P&S doesn't seem a big factor here.

Given a bit of thought and hopefully works something like:

Loan Received or maybe Receivable. Boosts Balance Sheet and probably cash flow but I don't see where the profit and loss kicks in.

Repayment by 2024. If necessary it comes out of Solidarity Payments. If a club borrows say £6m, for simplicity sake in equal instalments, £2m in each of the 3 seasons that follows this.

Don't see how the PL or lender lose out here. The kicker is that unlike the loan, the solidarity payments do impact Profit and loss being under Revenue.

I mean it's all about survival now but if a club isn't in dire need it maybe best in some ways that they don't take it.

[Tipps69]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I know what you mean, definitely some grounds to be sceptical.

I don't see how it could be put through as profit though, so even if it boosts income or financing at least, FFP/P&S doesn't seem a big factor here.

Given a bit of thought and hopefully works something like:

Loan Received or maybe Receivable. Boosts Balance Sheet and probably cash flow but I don't see where the profit and loss kicks in.

Repayment by 2024. If necessary it comes out of Solidarity Payments. If a club borrows say £6m, for simplicity sake in equal instalments, £2m in each of the 3 seasons that follows this.

Don't see how the PL or lender lose out here. The kicker is that unlike the loan, the solidarity payments do impact Profit and loss being under Revenue.

I mean it's all about survival now but if a club isn't in dire need it maybe best in some ways that they don't take it.

I gotta be honest, most of that went right over my but it’s fine, a lot of the financial stuff bypasses me.

And the bit I did understand is what my concern is (your last paragraph) the likes of the clubs I’ve mentioned before & obviously some others could take this money regardless & use it to boost their ‘transfer Kitty’ so rather than this fund being used as it was purposed for (to help survival). So how is that fair & right?

For me, if they are found to then use these funds for new players, they should have further financial implications added to deter them from taking this risk!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now this confuses me, this snippet from Matt Hughes and his excellent Ahead of the Game column in the Daily Mail.

If this deal- and thinking largely of the Championship clubs here- is done, why the following?

Quote

EFL could turn to Government to help Championship sides 

The EFL have opened talks with the Treasury over taking out a Government Business Loan to provide the bulk of the £200million that Championship clubs need to get through the season, with another loan from the private sector likely to follow. 

The EFL's thinking is that Government lending will provide the cheapest and most secure source of funds, which should also strengthen their negotiating position when it comes to borrowing from a commercial bank. 

With the ban on fans attending matches expected to be maintained all season - and even fears that restrictions could be applied during the 2021-22 campaign - it is anticipated that the EFL may require several loans for all of their clubs to survive.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9127447/AHEAD-GAME-Ralph-Hasenhuttl-features-Chelseas-list-Frank-Lampard-replacements.html

The last bolded bit is alarming too!

Given the Bank of England loans taken out by Tottenham- £175m- and Arsenal- £120m- seems only fair quite frankly! From a football angle anyway- wider society is a different debate. Though as profitable companies, they would be viewed differently from the EFL- or more accurately- the bulk of its member clubs.

How this works, I'm not entirely sure tbh. They take a Government Business Loan out from the Treasury, as security or borrowing in order to be able to boost their case for a loan? Would it be a case of borrowing for Security or borrowing in order to repay another loan?

[Mr Chappers]

17 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now this confuses me, this snippet from Matt Hughes and his excellent Ahead of the Game column in the Daily Mail.

If this deal- and thinking largely of the Championship clubs here- is done, why the following?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9127447/AHEAD-GAME-Ralph-Hasenhuttl-features-Chelseas-list-Frank-Lampard-replacements.html

The last bolded bit is alarming too!

Given the Bank of England loans taken out by Tottenham- £175m- and Arsenal- £120m- seems only fair quite frankly! From a football angle anyway- wider society is a different debate. Though as profitable companies, they would be viewed differently from the EFL- or more accurately- the bulk of its member clubs.

How this works, I'm not entirely sure tbh. They take a Government Business Loan out from the Treasury, as security or borrowing in order to be able to boost their case for a loan? Would it be a case of borrowing for Security or borrowing in order to repay another loan?

I’ve been thinking that there will be restrictions during 21/22 for a while. Think there will be a degree of caution as the virus will still be with us, and there will inevitably be a degree of trial and error with the vaccine.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Mr Chappers said:

I’ve been thinking that there will be restrictions during 21/22 for a while. Think there will be a degree of caution as the virus will still be with us, and there will inevitably be a degree of trial and error with the vaccine.

Wouldn't deny that as a risk factor, on the other bit though, just wondering if this is as an addition to the PL arrangements or as a replacement for.

[Olé]

On 09/01/2021 at 00:09, Mr Popodopolous said:

How this works, I'm not entirely sure tbh. They take a Government Business Loan out from the Treasury, as security or borrowing in order to be able to boost their case for a loan? Would it be a case of borrowing for Security or borrowing in order to repay another loan?

Just resurrecting this as the "bail out" for the EFL doesn't seem to have been well understood and worse still the news this week has received little or no coverage. As I understood it, while the Premier League were helping L1/L2 clubs, they were only underwriting a loan to Championship clubs by agreeing to help them secure one and service the debt (pay the interest to make sure the loan is interest free), not to actually fund the quoted £200m lending required by the Championship. 

Therefore the quoted Bank of England loan in this thread WAS the loan itself @Mr Popodopolous, however in any event it was reported yesterday the Bank of England offered £75m and the FL has forgone it as Championship clubs were expected to impose restrictions on salary increases and bonuses from directors and executives down to the players themselves. Not clear if Spurs or Arsenal were made to agree to those terms, presumably not, clearly the EFL is seen as higher risk.

It's reported the EFL agreed a £117.5m loan with a private lender (MetLife, a big US insurance company) also underwritten by the Premier League in terms of interest/guarantee. What this means for Championship clubs if the loans are not repaid is another matter however - not sure I'm comfortable with the idea all the clubs are on the hook to a private US entity (rather than the government), what would happen if football doesn't open up and clubs can't meet their repayment obligations? 

[Lrrr]

42 minutes ago, Olé said:

what would happen if football doesn't open up and clubs can't meet their repayment obligations? 

I'd guess the PL would repay MetLife and the club would then be in debt to the PL, if they ever got promoted to the prem before the money was paid off then what was owed would be deducted from what they earnt in promotion to the league?