• Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Project restart discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can essentially split the PL into 3 groups. The top 6, the bottom 14 and clubs who have substantial backing (who are prepared to bail them out of this situation).

The bottom 14 essentially require the TV money. The top 6 require full stadiums and an end to the recession so people start buying things again. To put it crudely, football will return, in some form before the latter too. Structurally that will aid the bottom 14 more.

What I find astounding with the 9 million figure, I can only assume it's from income lost, it would mean almost all of the sponsors are basically not paying. You look at Uniteds numbers, 28 million loss for 2.5 weeks, how will they got in the following 2.5 months? I'll make another fairly logical projection, if a sponsor has stopped paying, they have already in essence established the contracts been breached and won the argument that they are not going to pay you. Even if football restarts, if it's behind closed doors, out of the regular season etc expect sponsors to look to extract fairly hefty payments down. I can't think of a scenario where you go from paying 0, to paying 100% on resumption.

Retail in America was down 80% last month. It's hideous out there. Everyone CEO of every company at this moment in time is actively talking to their senior managers to state-where can we save money (as a result). Some of this will be employees. Lots will be outsourcing. If your Nike, a huge amount is going to be these sponsorship agreements they have. Their Director of Procurement will be getting a dictat, which is essentially reduce them or get out of the agreement.

You are correct to point out City. They will continue to pay. Usmanov will continue to pay. Outside of that it's open season.

You have Maddocks and Pearce now writing articles that Liverpool won't sign Werner. I actually like David Maddocks, but he's very supportive of Liverpool, and Pearce couldn't be more pro-Liverpool. That they are writing articles, saying revenues down, players can't be bought etc is the canary in the mine. 12 months ago he would have been leading the push of the 100m Nike deal and the likelihood of signing Mbappe for 250m if they wanted too. You don't have to listen to me, just listen to them.

It won't affect Everton that much, we are in a far worse starting position true but we lose 14m revenue for gate receipts. United and LIverpool will be 3 figures for the 3 month lay off, 3 figures for match day revenue, 3 figures losses for commercial/sponsorship collapsing and potentially close to 3 figures for European revenue if seasons are voided. All while they have massive contractual obligations to meet for wages (with lots tied down to long term deals). It's interesting I saw a link about VVD going to Madrid for 90m. Don't rule anything out as things stand, especially if they get laughed away for Mane again.

Thats a final consideration too. It's not just they are in trouble, but it is are their owners (United, Arsenal, LIverpool's) going to be able to keep a clear head when this enormous pressure comes on. It looks like United have whacked a load onto their debt (about 130 million). In my experience, organisations that are put under intensive pressures will often crumble. Lots of Liverpool fans are talking of a new H & G for United (which it will be) but have no appreciation they are heading the same way.

I mean both have certain get outs. United have cash reserves of about £250m (though most of that is just a credit facility so not their money). LIverpool theoretically have a very strong (if ageing) squad that would keep them towards the top end for another couple of years if recruitment halted and they could just put the losses onto debt to be paid back over a long period. However both of them, and Arsenal are under a pressure they won't have experienced in a long time. Good luck with dealing with that, while your core businesses in America come under scrutiny over the next 6 months with a depraved lunatic taking ever increasing risks to try to retain his presidency shreds the US economy.

Great post and thanks for your recent posting history! Fine work, enjoy reading them.

Just to back up your point, this is exactly the message that has come from above where I work. Reign in the spending... every budget cut. They really arent doing badly either, quite the opposite.

I'm also wondering how Sky will come out from all this to. I guess the same would apply to them reference advertising. Clearly a case of the last 9 games being damage limitation rather than as you were.
 

You can essentially split the PL into 3 groups. The top 6, the bottom 14 and clubs who have substantial backing (who are prepared to bail them out of this situation).

The bottom 14 essentially require the TV money. The top 6 require full stadiums and an end to the recession so people start buying things again. To put it crudely, football will return, in some form before the latter too. Structurally that will aid the bottom 14 more.

What I find astounding with the 9 million figure, I can only assume it's from income lost, it would mean almost all of the sponsors are basically not paying. You look at Uniteds numbers, 28 million loss for 2.5 weeks, how will they got in the following 2.5 months? I'll make another fairly logical projection, if a sponsor has stopped paying, they have already in essence established the contracts been breached and won the argument that they are not going to pay you. Even if football restarts, if it's behind closed doors, out of the regular season etc expect sponsors to look to extract fairly hefty payments down. I can't think of a scenario where you go from paying 0, to paying 100% on resumption.

Retail in America was down 80% last month. It's hideous out there. Everyone CEO of every company at this moment in time is actively talking to their senior managers to state-where can we save money (as a result). Some of this will be employees. Lots will be outsourcing. If your Nike, a huge amount is going to be these sponsorship agreements they have. Their Director of Procurement will be getting a dictat, which is essentially reduce them or get out of the agreement.

You are correct to point out City. They will continue to pay. Usmanov will continue to pay. Outside of that it's open season.

You have Maddocks and Pearce now writing articles that Liverpool won't sign Werner. I actually like David Maddocks, but he's very supportive of Liverpool, and Pearce couldn't be more pro-Liverpool. That they are writing articles, saying revenues down, players can't be bought etc is the canary in the mine. 12 months ago he would have been leading the push of the 100m Nike deal and the likelihood of signing Mbappe for 250m if they wanted too. You don't have to listen to me, just listen to them.

It won't affect Everton that much, we are in a far worse starting position true but we lose 14m revenue for gate receipts. United and LIverpool will be 3 figures for the 3 month lay off, 3 figures for match day revenue, 3 figures losses for commercial/sponsorship collapsing and potentially close to 3 figures for European revenue if seasons are voided. All while they have massive contractual obligations to meet for wages (with lots tied down to long term deals). It's interesting I saw a link about VVD going to Madrid for 90m. Don't rule anything out as things stand, especially if they get laughed away for Mane again.

Thats a final consideration too. It's not just they are in trouble, but it is are their owners (United, Arsenal, LIverpool's) going to be able to keep a clear head when this enormous pressure comes on. It looks like United have whacked a load onto their debt (about 130 million). In my experience, organisations that are put under intensive pressures will often crumble. Lots of Liverpool fans are talking of a new H & G for United (which it will be) but have no appreciation they are heading the same way.

I mean both have certain get outs. United have cash reserves of about £250m (though most of that is just a credit facility so not their money). LIverpool theoretically have a very strong (if ageing) squad that would keep them towards the top end for another couple of years if recruitment halted and they could just put the losses onto debt to be paid back over a long period. However both of them, and Arsenal are under a pressure they won't have experienced in a long time. Good luck with dealing with that, while your core businesses in America come under scrutiny over the next 6 months with a depraved lunatic taking ever increasing risks to try to retain his presidency shreds the US economy.
The United figures to the end of March was the loss of revenue from 3 home games - £8m, plus the assumption they’ve made that they’ll end up having to repay TV around £20m back, irrespective of what happens to the rest of the season.

The RS aren’t losing £9m per week, their losses will be less than Uniteds due to the smaller matchday revenues. The talk of them not spending this summer may be accurate, but it’ll likely be merely prudence, based on uncertain matchday revenues from next season, combined with the highly likely loss of CL revenue.
 

I think it's fair to end the season now with them as champions, like if you took took some super advanced Footy Manager on steroids like simulations for the remaining games based off the data they'd probs win the league 99 times out of 100 on the current points but at the same time I reckon the bottom 3 and european spots would vary loads and you'd get a different outcome almost every time.

They really should call of the season now, award them the title, don't relegate and promote. European spots just either same as last season or a lottery for the clubs still in contention (maybe weight teams probability in the lottery off of current points).

Didnt UEFA say they wouldnt give european places to teams in leagues that weren't successfully completed or something?
 
The United figures to the end of March was the loss of revenue from 3 home games - £8m, plus the assumption they’ve made that they’ll end up having to repay TV around £20m back, irrespective of what happens to the rest of the season.

The RS aren’t losing £9m per week, their losses will be less than Uniteds due to the smaller matchday revenues. The talk of them not spending this summer may be accurate, but it’ll likely be merely prudence, based on uncertain matchday revenues from next season, combined with the highly likely loss of CL revenue.

Accounting can be done very creatively. United added £130m to the debt in that time.

Somebody is supposedly losing £9m per week. Numerous well connected people within football have said it's Liverpool. It's interesting there has been not a single refutation of that from any of their well connected journalists.

At this stage, clubs may not report the sponsorship figures. It may well be sponsors paid United up to March and not after.
 
Great post and thanks for your recent posting history! Fine work, enjoy reading them.

Just to back up your point, this is exactly the message that has come from above where I work. Reign in the spending... every budget cut. They really arent doing badly either, quite the opposite.

I'm also wondering how Sky will come out from all this to. I guess the same would apply to them reference advertising. Clearly a case of the last 9 games being damage limitation rather than as you were.

Thanks mate and you too!

This is it, and I am having the same discussions with people in my workplace. One of my colleagues who's wife works for a city accountancy firm (I think she's either a partner or close) said in March she voluntarily took a 15% pay cut as the business would have to lose people without it. This is accountancy, which you'd think would have been holding up quite well, very early into the outbreak.

It's obvious what businesses are doing in this circumstance. The human nature of us all is to protect jobs. So you look to get rid of outsourcing people first (as they are easier) and costly sponsorships are just a luxury that can be done without. Normally a PL's clubs leverage if say Nike said "we want 40% off that" would be "no, we will terminate the agreement". In a boom, gazumping economy where say Liverpool are the hot ticket that is a massive risk for Nike and will reign them in. However when your objective may well be to get out of the contract, what leverage do you have? All Liverpool can really say, is in potentially 2 years, you may start to make some money back on the deal. Thats about it.

As for Sky, they will be damaged I'm sure. However a key difference for Sky compared to say Nike is football is very integral to their business. If Sky lost their football clubs, they've still got a massive business. People will just buy other teams shirts. If they lose half the teams, people just buy other shirts. With Sky, if they lose football, I think it's a big big hit. Don't get me wrong Sky will (and have) extracted concessions but will be more cautious than commercial partners. That would be a warning too as well, Sky and the PL have a 30 year relationship, and concessions are being given even if football is played. What loyalty is a sponsor who has been in an agreement a couple of years going to have for a PL club?
 

I know nothing about football finances so i'll keep that to the experts @catcherintherye but when we say they are losing 9 million a week isnt it more like they arent earning 9 million a week? Im guessing this is because of the lack of games and match revenue and sponsorship etc etc ?
So its not like 9 mill is being drained from the accounts, its just not going in like it normally does?
 
I know nothing about football finances so i'll keep that to the experts @catcherintherye but when we say they are losing 9 million a week isnt it more like they arent earning 9 million a week? Im guessing this is because of the lack of games and match revenue and sponsorship etc etc ?
So its not like 9 mill is being drained from the accounts, its just not going in like it normally does?

I'll be frank, it wasn't very clear what the loss of 9 million meant. The Article emerged from John Cross, who is very well connected but he was relatively on whether he meant incomes were down 9m per week, or debt/losses were going at 9m per week.


My interpretation was income. It means essentially all the income streams were nil, and sponsors have stopped paying, which makes sense. The reality is though, on expenditure they have a wage bill at over 6m per week, plus other commitments to agents etc and Cross estimated they'd have to get a £100+m loan to cover the loss.It's hard for football clubs to cut expenditure much, as their biggest commitment wages remains fixed and high.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top