Jump to content
IGNORED

PL and EFL TV distribution agreement.


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

According to Matt Hughes anyway.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12572519/Premier-League-EFL-agree-sell-TV-rights-time-Football-League-set-88m-bonus-payment-season-historic-deal.html

Publication being Daily Mail aside he is quite good.

No reference to Parachute Payments, this joint pooling is only applicable to overseas T.V. rights but refers to 14.75 pct. As in 14.75 pct presumably to Solidarity Payments.

There would be new rules on expenditure as part of the deal, says clubs are to some aspects.

£88m bonus this year, and up to 14.75 percent next year. The lack of reference to Parachute Payments would bake in their advantage even further if that situation isn't reformed, altered or rectified if it comes wirh the new spending limits.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this too.

Earlier article, Guardian. Seems PL were insisting on Parachute Payments remaining, dunno if this has been superseded by events.

Oh and a difference between 85 pct limit and a Championship 70 pct limit.

Do hope the League haven't signed a deal whereby Parachute Payments remain while the expenditure limit changes to 70 pct of turnover. The gap between Solidarity and Parachute Payments would be major. 🤬

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Guardian piece was posted today so is up to date. Text follows:

The Premier League has presented a plan to increase financial redistribution to the English Football League by £358m over the three seasons to 2025-26, with a series of strings attached.

Under the terms of the deal, EFL clubs would receive an extra £88m this season, an extra £101m next season and an extra £169m the season after. Those figures would continue to rise over the following three years of what would be a six-year agreement. Championship clubs would get 75% of the money paid by the Premier League, League One clubs 15% and League Two clubs 10%.

EFL clubs believe they are being offered 14.75% of net media revenue from the Premier League and EFL combined, well below the 25% they were hoping for.

EFL clubs were presented with details of the deal on Thursday at a general meeting held in Derby. The Premier League is waiting for feedback from the EFL before returning to its clubs in the hope that a formal proposal can be made. The 72 EFL clubs would then vote on that proposal.

One of the Premier League’s caveats for providing additional funding is that its under-21 clubs invited to play in the EFL Trophy – 15 are participating this season – must be guaranteed more matches. Another is that League One and Two clubs must set aside part of their allocation for facilities, meaning it could not all be used for transfer fees or player wages. The Premier League is also insisting that parachute payments must continue in the face of EFL opposition.

The EFL’s leadership feels there are obstacles to be resolved before a deal can be struck. These relate primarily to the nature of cost controls to be agreed alongside an increase in redistribution. One particularly contentious element is believed to be the request that clubs relegated from the Premier League be allowed to continue spending at higher relative levels than other clubs in the Championship, something second‑tier clubs believe could – along with parachute payments – distort the competitive nature of the division.

After this season, the money received by the EFL from the Premier League would be distributed on merit, meaning the higher a club finishes the more cash they would receive. It is anticipated that over the next three years each Championship club would earn approximately an extra £10m. 

I suspect the EFL will accept but it amounts to the first step in the PL controlling the 3 tiers. Once they get their way on this I doubt they'll stop there.

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I suppose my thinking about being superseded was the Guardian piece says it was written at 4.19pm, the other piece at 8.01pm and updated at 8.26pm.

Maybe in that timeframe some minor issues got resolved albeit the big one ie Parachute Payments, is a major elephant in the room.

I doubt anything will be resolved until the EFL consults with the clubs. I can see Steve accepting it though as it will add substantially to the nest egg and make a sale that bit easier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I doubt anything will be resolved until the EFL consults with the clubs. I can see Steve accepting it though as it will add substantially to the nest egg and make a sale that bit easier.

What are the EFL going to bat with? They're just in the grace and favour of the EPL aren't they? "We politely decline your offer and would like you to play fair!" Someone please tell me the EFL has some negotiating power. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I doubt anything will be resolved until the EFL consults with the clubs. I can see Steve accepting it though as it will add substantially to the nest egg and make a sale that bit easier.

It will help with the sale from one angle but a new owner having to work within a 70 pct of turnover to football wages, amortisation and agents fees costs with the gap between Parachute and Solidarity Payments may act as a disincentive to fresh investment or takeovers.

Take a club with two identical sets of revenue streams save for TV distribution and assume EFL distribution itself is equally distributed at a flat rate among Championship clubs.

If e.g. Year 1 Parachute Payments are £45m and Solidarity Payments £10m..that is a £35m gap and the 70 pct rule was in play that maybe gives the relegated side a £24.5m advantage.

I wonder if the new system would help or would hinder non Parachute clubs.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Stewart has hit out against it (Rotherham owner)- bit in the Football League paper Sunday.

The 85 pct for relegated sides and Parachute Payments remain was mooted a few days ago.

Parachute Payments could be drastically slashed but what about as a starting point, Pooling Solidarity Payments and Parachute Payments, then distributing under the current formula. Oh and joined up harmonised rules ie no 85 pct to 70 pct.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/09/2023 at 08:33, luke_bristol said:

This is just a franchise system by stealth and in all but name. Bit by bit they’ll continue to incrementally erode the ability of teams like ours to compete until eventually it’s not just incredibly hard, but impossible. 

Which is what has p@#&ed off Uncle Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Which is what has p@#&ed off Uncle Steve

We all know the system is horribly flawed at best, rigged at worst and we all know SL has been quite the advocate against Parachute Payments but the irony is that we now have a solidish base but yeah playoffs in most years the best that non Parachute clubs can realistically hope for IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We all know the system is horribly flawed at best, rigged at worst and we all know SL has been quite the advocate against Parachute Payments but the irony is that we now have a solidish base but yeah playoffs in most years the best that non Parachute clubs can realistically hope for IMO.

A “solidish base”, to achieve what, exactly?

Nothing,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s fairly obvious PPs should be ditched for payments to assist with player wages only, with caveats regarding player ages, contract lengths, any refused transfer offers, whether they are Club grown and so on. 

It would still be free money and a huge advantage, but ultimately the original rationale of PPs was to ensure your club doesn’t immediately hit the wall because the owner can’t afford or loses interest on relegation.
 

Now they are already an advantage too great to have a competitive league and the new rules would just end English club football as any sort of meritocracy at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://archive.ph/2023.10.16-101453/https://theathletic.com/4957498/2023/10/16/epl-efl-explained-deal-english-football/

Interesting article.

Sounds like the PL would want to retain Parachute Payments, include profit as revenue and a higher percentage of wages to turnover for their relegated sides and would want some kind of merit based distribution element too.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://archive.ph/2023.10.16-101453/https://theathletic.com/4957498/2023/10/16/epl-efl-explained-deal-english-football/

Interesting article.

Sounds like the PL would want to retain Parachute Payments, include profit as revenue and a higher percentage of wages to turnover for their relegated sides and would want some kind of merit based distribution element too.

Thanks for sharing, really informative article.  Saved!!

45 minutes ago, FForbes said:

Does anyone know who would attend EFL meetings to represent BCFC ?

It was Richard Gould, no idea who these days.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some extra detail that I missed at the time. Late September.

Telegraph article, the 70% vs 85% and Parachute vs rising revenue but it also says equity can take it to 90%.

https://archive.is/2023.09.20-205855/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/09/20/premier-league-130m-championship-new-deal-uefa/

No reports yet that the EFL have agreed to the New Deal but who knows...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looks like the PL are having another meeting over the new Distribution Agreement, among other things.

https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-to-canvas-again-on-new-deal-amid-tensions-with-clubs-13018096

Clubs don't pay the EFL clubs directly do they? 

This seems a bit of a cop out. "We've overspent so have to borrow money but if EFL clubs didn't get a share we wouldn't have to borrow money" is how I interpret this. 

Screenshot_20231129_054135_Samsung Internet.jpg

Edited by W-S-M Seagull
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Clubs don't pay the EFL clubs directly do they? 

This seems a bit of a cop out. "We've overspent so have to borrow money but if EFL clubs didn't get a share we wouldn't have to borrow money" is how I interpret this. 

Screenshot_20231129_054135_Samsung Internet.jpg

AHH it's interesting that they mention the WSL as that's moving away from FA to Club ownership the funding for that's being discussed as well.  Maybe they'll use that as some sort of chip in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Clubs don't pay the EFL clubs directly do they? 

This seems a bit of a cop out. "We've overspent so have to borrow money but if EFL clubs didn't get a share we wouldn't have to borrow money" is how I interpret this. 

Screenshot_20231129_054135_Samsung Internet.jpg

Yeah, sounds like they as a club perhaps need to budget better.

Goes Sky/Broadcaster-League-Clubs.

Central Awards.

Besides which the wages,amortisation etc being capped ay x% of turnover should balance it out a bit?

Perhaps irs a case of owner puts in x per year cash flow wise but if they put in x minus some TV cash, they have to borrow the remainder.

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...