Athletic Article: League One and Two Seasons to be abandoned next week

[That Fat Centre Half]

Apologies if I have missed or misunderstood something but does anyone know why the promotions with no relegations (or 22/24/24/22 as ive seen it called elsewhere) suggestion has seemingly been taken off the table? That seemed a reasonably neat way of rewarding clubs who "deserved" promotion on the games played whilst not "punishing" those who still had a realistic shot at staying up. Seemed to me it would keep the majority of clubs happy and would stop some of the politicking from Brighton et al.

Obvious cards on the table moment that it would be beneficial for us (for a short time in any case as wed be relegated the next season with the extra relegation spots in any case).

 

[Indian Dan]

I’ve asked this before. Why do some people think relegation using ppg is unfair but denying promotion isn’t?

Why should arse wipe losers be rewarded.

 

[AdamStag]

I’ve asked this before. Why do some people think relegation using ppg is unfair but denying promotion isn’t?

Why should arse wipe losers be rewarded.

It clearly shouldn’t be used for one and not the other.

If the season is finished using PPG then clearly it should affect promotion and relegation and the highest side in the playoffs goes up automatically. Not really sure what the difficulty is with that?

 

[Semi-skimmed Silk]

How does PPG work with Macc? Is it PPG then deduct points or deduct points then PPG off that figure? Not that it really matters I suppose (well, it doesn't on standard PPG, not sure about weighted home and away).

Surely PPG then deduct is the only way that makes sense as PPG is designed to indicate how many points you'd gain over a full season. I don't see us surviving in the long run anyway (hope we manage to survive long enough so as to not let Stevenage survive for everyone here's sakes) with our owner continuing to offer nothing that gives hope; he tried to put off the EFL hearing claiming he had no way of doing a video call!

 

[valefan16]

If Macc can’t go down even with the PPG if voided surely the rules about point deductions rolling over to the following season come in anyway?

Surprised the EFL did it now anyway with it making the Stevenage situation more complex for being booted out the EFL without ever officially being relegated on the pitch as now they’ve got a bit more of an argument that they could of stayed up.

In terms of the Swindon comments that all is done an dusted our CEO has said the clubs have been summoned to a conference call on Friday at noon with the EFL board meeting the government on Thursday.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

Nixon said again a snag hit today. Even though the FA confirmed there will be relegaton, they want the Premier League to 100% confirm there will be no relegation so they can promote teams by PPG this week.

 

[Indian Dan]

Here you go null and voiders

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Here you go null and voiders

So the earth isn’t flat after all. Who’d thunk that?

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

I think once the Premier League 100% confirm relegation will happen (and they will because the FA have and the EFL are very expectant of it) we'll see this quickly resolved. Athletic article today hints that the Championship is set to retain playoffs but will likely cancel its season too.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

The Athletic also confirm this morning a rebate to Sky, SkyBet and Screwfix (plus other sponsors) will cost EFL clubs over £30 million. Going off the rights formula, this will cost Championship clubs over £1 million each, L1 clubs over £150,000 each and our clubs over £100,000 each.

With the PL solidarity rebate that'll inevitably double those costs, we'll already be £200,000 down from the handouts before any other losses are accumulated.

 

[chipmunx]

How long is left on the sky/skybet deals? I think the Sky one is to the end of the 2023/24 season? - it might be worth the EFL going to them and offering a 1 year extension to the deal with no extra cash - but with no rebate for this season and a clause that there would be no rebate next season if the same happened. As it looks like there is 4 years left on the TV deal increasing that by 1 season to 5 years would result in clubs getting 20% less each year - bu taking away the rebate loss from 2019/20 and the chance of a rebate next season might make it a good option and help safeguard some clubs futures?.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

How long is left on the sky/skybet deals? I think the Sky one is to the end of the 2023/24 season? - it might be worth the EFL going to them and offering a 1 year extension to the deal with no extra cash - but with no rebate for this season and a clause that there would be no rebate next season if the same happened. As it looks like there is 4 years left on the TV deal increasing that by 1 season to 5 years would result in clubs getting 20% less each year - bu taking away the rebate loss from 2019/20 and the chance of a rebate next season might make it a good option and help safeguard some clubs futures?.

I've seen so many people mention this and I agree it's an option and a good idea in theory. But the thing is, there's the double whammy of solidarity going too, and that's only got two years left. There'd also still be a significant loss of revenue. The TV deal was £595 million for all 3 divisions over 5 years. Approximately £90 million of that deal has been paid for and completed. Assume you take off the aforementioned rebate and do what you've said, you've got £476 million left over 5 years instead of 4. So where the deal was once worth just under £119 million annually to the clubs, it'll now be worth around £95 million annually. And you've got to remember, if we don't have a 2020-21 season, Sky will more than likely cancel the contract to save their own money (it's a business decision, people still think English football is socialist, it's the most capitalist sporting structure in the world) which would be the worst case scenario.

I think under your proposals, and assuming we have a full 2020-21 season which is unlikely right now, Championship clubs cut of the money would go down from £95 million before (which is now the value of the overall deal and would equate to just under £4 million per club) to £76 million (which would put it around the £3.15 million per club mark). Though it doesn't seem catastrophic, that's already a shortfall of £800,000 per year for 4 years (you could argue 5 as the rights may have gone up if Corona didn't hit us) before any other inevitable losses come in. And given it's a basket case of a league financially, more losses far exceeding that total are expected.

Leagues 1 and 2s portion of the rights will drop from £24 million combined to £19 million combined. This is then split 60:40. So L1 clubs that shared £14.4 million between them (£600,000 per club assuming there was 24 teams) would now share £11.4 million between them (£475,000 per club). L2 clubs that shared £9.6 million between them (£400,000 per club) would now only share £7.6 million between them (A little over £315,000 per club). Of course, it's better than nothing, but a six figure loss for L1 clubs and a near six figure loss for L2 clubs, in just one minor area of where losses will be incurred, is alarming. Luckily, 40% of the leagues players are out of contract next month, with the vast majority out of contract 12 months later and only a handful of clubs having players on 3 year deals. But there'd still be a shortfall, it might look minor but this before you account for solidarity, sponsorships, potential ST rebates, loss of gate revenue etc. I think Luke Imp saying Lincoln could lose £900,000 for example because of this is a very accurate assumption, and they're one of the more well run clubs in the league!

And then, given Sky are probably one of the most Capitalist and merciless corporations in existence (if you've seen the story about them sabotaging ITV Digital through a third party you'll know), will they be looking to pay the league even less than that given it's a significantly vulnerable product? I mean these marquee £10 million signings made by second tier clubs are going to be a thing of the past given they'll all be skint. The overseas players in the EFL will want to move to still badly hit but more stable Continental top flights as the money in the second tier will be nowhere near what it was before for player wages. So can Sky argue they could pay an even more reduced rate as 1. The EFL has breached the terms of the deal and 2. The product could be vastly inferior in value than before? I personally don't think they could, but I'm no legal expert, so I wouldn't like to rule it out!

It won't necessarily affect us peasants in L1 and L2 much, but Championship clubs who've given players daft four or five year contracts on high wages will have technically already spent the money for future seasons where there's evidently going to be a shortfall. And then you've got to account for the heavy transfer fees and wage spending in the Championship that may not be fully honoured eventually. That doesn't affect us to as great a financial extent, but you'd think some clubs in our leagues would also struggle to honour contracts too.

It's a mess, but the long and the short of it is, TV has all levels of the professional game by the balls, and we need to prepare for a future where we can still show our product on TV, but be far less reliant on it than we've been in the past 30 years.

 

[chipmunx]

it's definitely a mess - the clause i said about next season (which will get impacted even if its Sky wanting to reduce payments for games played with no crowds and no atmosphere) would help protect the clubs too - and I think many of us expect the next TV deal to be worse than the current one - and expected that even before the pandemic.

 

[chipmunx]

the bit about big money championship signings staying abroad is fine - it will give young players a better chance to develop and might pass more of the money that is spent down the leagues instead of going abroad.

 

[Indian Dan]

We’ve got a few high earners - notably Doyle and Grant. Us fans were querying why Power only gave them a 6 month contract in January - thank God for that! Our recruitment model before the season seemed to be signing players too good for L2 but with questionable fitness records on one year deals. I think those deals for new, extended contracts were being negotiated. I presume those are now dead in the water. I think we offered, and he accepted, Doughty a new 2 year deal (although he could afford to play for nothing as he’s minted anyway). The likes of Anderson, Woolery etc are OOC come July. 5 loan players go back. What the actual state of the finances are I have no idea.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

it's definitely a mess - the clause i said about next season (which will get impacted even if its Sky wanting to reduce payments for games played with no crowds and no atmosphere) would help protect the clubs too - and I think many of us expect the next TV deal to be worse than the current one - and expected that even before the pandemic.

The worst thing is that we lower league fans know that, but I've just seen a few of the Championship fans in the comments on that article saying "We'll be fine, companies like Google and Amazon will look at the rights and think, given how watched we are, we'll be worth snapping up."

I really don't think Google and Amazon are going to be particularly interested in the second, third and fourth tiers. The overspending has gone to their heads and made them think they're bigger clubs than they are and they're going to be in for a nasty shock in the coming months and years ahead.

Football is essentially a three-tiered game at the moment. The Premier League is a mix of corporations which promote club tourism designed to appeal to the middle classes of the local area and overseas football fan, and the lower league clubs that have done good and made it.

You've got the Championship who are aspiring to become like these clubs, but the fans there are the ones constantly demanding unsustainable wages and signings be paid and a manager sacked if they go on a 5 game winless run. I saw a large minority of Forest fans rave about Lamouchi most of the autumn before wanting him sacked in December for a mini-winless run! The short-termism in that league because of the financial rewards of being in the Premier League in particular is absolutely ridiculous and it's probably our most broken league of them all at the moment. There are also a lot of clubs trading on their past glories in this league, so they also have significant delusions of their own grandeur.

Then there's us. Realists. We just want to see our clubs play, a lot of us don't care about the money, we just want there to be a game to return to. If we lose a lot of money financially? So be it, we'll just have to learn to cut our cloth accordingly. Some clubs do so already. But having a game to return to is what we should aim for now. The more I've looked into the potential damage the game could suffer because of this, the less I've become concerned about PPG and going up.

Fans are going to have to become realistic, stop demanding the Chairman for that extra striker to get 5 goals a season on a fat wage and be loaned out 12 months later, and stop being so money motivated. Same goes for players, staff, club executives and the league governing bodies.

 

[chipmunx]

we've have 9 players on contract after this season and the rest would have been up now. The whole squad is on Furlough with the club (I believe) paying the other 20%. But despite being top our average wage was only about £700/week - lower than most NL clubs and way way lower than EFL clubs we are probably in a better shape than most league 2 clubs whilst this is going on.

 

[Greenacres]

I think our situation may be similar to Barrow, with maybe 10 players having contracts running beyond the end of this season, so we are probably in a reasonable shape too. I would expect the players we have in/out on loan to return to their parent club. Unfortunately the players whose contracts are ending are largely those who you would want to retain, it will be interesting to see how clubs in a similar position address this matter. Clearly the unknown here is how many players were in contract negotiations before the season was suspended and may already have agreed to stay beyond the end of June. I would hope if that is the case that clubs will honour their agreements, it could get very messy if they don't.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

Interesting to see Championship fans in the comments on that article are saying things along the lines of "Sky need us more than we need them. They're empty threats. We can just go to Netflix, Amazon or Google."

Really? Do these people expect these companies to pay the same fee as Sky have done for an increasingly vulnerable and technically financially insolvent product? Do these people not realise Sky isn't the same company as it was in 1992? From piggybacking on football in the 90s, Sky now has multi-billion pound revenue streams from landlines, mobiles and broadband as well as TV, of which sports is a subdivision of its TV business, albeit its most lucrative arm I will admit. I think they'll survive and I think they'll be more than happy to renew their deal eventually...for a significantly reduced fee! Because the EFL can only sell, that's right, football! So the seller is desperate to sell and the buyer will be able to capitalise upon that opportunity.

Besides, will elitist American corporations really be interested about the second tier, let alone third or fourth tier of English football? They've seen two second-rate American Football leagues fold in their own country on major broadcast networks because they weren't watchable like the elite NFL product they show that brings in billions. Fans worldwide only care about the elite, they're not going to care about Bristol City, Portsmouth or Plymouth I'm afraid.

Despite the endless foreign ownership chasing a pipe dream, there's actually very little global appetite for the EFL. Any appetite for it is expats abroad and people wanting to see who the 20th Premier League team will be when the playoff final is shown. It's why I was a fierce critic of Shaun Harvey constantly doing things (like changing the name from The Football League to EFL) in the name of globalisation when there was simply very little global demand for the product. Okay Leeds might be big in Australia because of the past, but are Amazon really going to pay for Brentford vs Barnsley in the Championship and promote it to ridiculous proportions? They're absolutely not.

 

[Si Robin]

Dale Vince giving it to Tranmere fans today - which I'm surprised at given we're the expected beneficiaries:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1260489928137412610

 

[dedwardp]

Someone's suggestion on our forum...

Decide all games across the PL and FL on penalties. I'm serious, hear me out.

Thousands of football matches across the planet for decades have been decided by penalties, it isn't ideal, but this isn't new. You'd only need the 5 takers and a keeper to turn up, so social distancing is much easier. The actual event itself means the keeper and player are a good 12 yards away from each other, which complies with social distancing.

It's better than null and void, it's better than PPG. The only thing it isn't better than is playing actual games, but for a whole number of obvious reasons this is looking less and less likely over safety. If players start catching Covid this whole thing in the prem will be pulled.

TV companies will have to decide if this meets their criteria as a product they paid for. But come on, who the hell wouldn't watch a few weeks of penalty shootouts to decide so much across the leagues? It would be addictive.

Could you imagine if Liverpool lost the first shootout? Then the 2nd.

Nerves kick in, they can't shift it. If they lost 2 games in a row you'd expect a team of that quality to easily turn it around, but shootouts are a lottery and confidence is everything! Would be an epic finish to the season!

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

Someone's suggestion on our forum...

Decide all games across the PL and FL on penalties. I'm serious, hear me out.

Thousands of football matches across the planet for decades have been decided by penalties, it isn't ideal, but this isn't new. You'd only need the 5 takers and a keeper to turn up, so social distancing is much easier. The actual event itself means the keeper and player are a good 12 yards away from each other, which complies with social distancing.

It's better than null and void, it's better than PPG. The only thing it isn't better than is playing actual games, but for a whole number of obvious reasons this is looking less and less likely over safety. If players start catching Covid this whole thing in the prem will be pulled.

TV companies will have to decide if this meets their criteria as a product they paid for. But come on, who the hell wouldn't watch a few weeks of penalty shootouts to decide so much across the leagues? It would be addictive.

Could you imagine if Liverpool lost the first shootout? Then the 2nd.

Nerves kick in, they can't shift it. If they lost 2 games in a row you'd expect a team of that quality to easily turn it around, but shootouts are a lottery and confidence is everything! Would be an epic finish to the season!

Well if you have a team full of predominantly English players you're gonna be fucked if that's how a season would be decided...

 

[Trapdoor]

Think pens is a fair way of doing it at this point to be honest.

Better than arbitrarily awarding teams 6 points per game for games that haven't even been played.

 

[Indian Dan]

Nob wrestling. It’s the only fair way.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

I've seen so many people mention this and I agree it's an option and a good idea in theory. But the thing is, there's the double whammy of solidarity going too, and that's only got two years left. There'd also still be a significant loss of revenue. The TV deal was £595 million for all 3 divisions over 5 years. Approximately £90 million of that deal has been paid for and completed. Assume you take off the aforementioned rebate and do what you've said, you've got £476 million left over 5 years instead of 4. So where the deal was once worth just under £119 million annually to the clubs, it'll now be worth around £95 million annually. And you've got to remember, if we don't have a 2020-21 season, Sky will more than likely cancel the contract to save their own money (it's a business decision, people still think English football is socialist, it's the most capitalist sporting structure in the world) which would be the worst case scenario.

I think under your proposals, and assuming we have a full 2020-21 season which is unlikely right now, Championship clubs cut of the money would go down from £95 million before (which is now the value of the overall deal and would equate to just under £4 million per club) to £76 million (which would put it around the £3.15 million per club mark). Though it doesn't seem catastrophic, that's already a shortfall of £800,000 per year for 4 years (you could argue 5 as the rights may have gone up if Corona didn't hit us) before any other inevitable losses come in. And given it's a basket case of a league financially, more losses far exceeding that total are expected.

Leagues 1 and 2s portion of the rights will drop from £24 million combined to £19 million combined. This is then split 60:40. So L1 clubs that shared £14.4 million between them (£600,000 per club assuming there was 24 teams) would now share £11.4 million between them (£475,000 per club). L2 clubs that shared £9.6 million between them (£400,000 per club) would now only share £7.6 million between them (A little over £315,000 per club). Of course, it's better than nothing, but a six figure loss for L1 clubs and a near six figure loss for L2 clubs, in just one minor area of where losses will be incurred, is alarming. Luckily, 40% of the leagues players are out of contract next month, with the vast majority out of contract 12 months later and only a handful of clubs having players on 3 year deals. But there'd still be a shortfall, it might look minor but this before you account for solidarity, sponsorships, potential ST rebates, loss of gate revenue etc. I think Luke Imp saying Lincoln could lose £900,000 for example because of this is a very accurate assumption, and they're one of the more well run clubs in the league!

And then, given Sky are probably one of the most Capitalist and merciless corporations in existence (if you've seen the story about them sabotaging ITV Digital through a third party you'll know), will they be looking to pay the league even less than that given it's a significantly vulnerable product? I mean these marquee £10 million signings made by second tier clubs are going to be a thing of the past given they'll all be skint. The overseas players in the EFL will want to move to still badly hit but more stable Continental top flights as the money in the second tier will be nowhere near what it was before for player wages. So can Sky argue they could pay an even more reduced rate as 1. The EFL has breached the terms of the deal and 2. The product could be vastly inferior in value than before? I personally don't think they could, but I'm no legal expert, so I wouldn't like to rule it out!

It won't necessarily affect us peasants in L1 and L2 much, but Championship clubs who've given players daft four or five year contracts on high wages will have technically already spent the money for future seasons where there's evidently going to be a shortfall. And then you've got to account for the heavy transfer fees and wage spending in the Championship that may not be fully honoured eventually. That doesn't affect us to as great a financial extent, but you'd think some clubs in our leagues would also struggle to honour contracts too.

It's a mess, but the long and the short of it is, TV has all levels of the professional game by the balls, and we need to prepare for a future where we can still show our product on TV, but be far less reliant on it than we've been in the past 30 years.

The thing that could affect League 1 and 2 clubs are those expecting percentages of transfer fees for players they sold. First, the fees will be a lot lower and second some clubs simply won’t have the money to honour those already agreed. So an Exeter or Crewe might be expecting a sum, say as a player they sold, makes a certain number of games. But will the higher side actually have the cash to pay on the agreed date?

 

[chipmunx]

The thing that could affect League 1 and 2 clubs are those expecting percentages of transfer fees for players they sold. First, the fees will be a lot lower and second some clubs simply won’t have the money to honour those already agreed. So an Exeter or Crewe might be expecting a sum, say as a player they sold, makes a certain number of games. But will the higher side actually have the cash to pay on the agreed date?

maybe Crewe or Exeter would refer them to the EFL who would doc them however many points and that might end up on them not getting promoted on PPG - or getting relegated on PPG

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

The thing that could affect League 1 and 2 clubs are those expecting percentages of transfer fees for players they sold. First, the fees will be a lot lower and second some clubs simply won’t have the money to honour those already agreed. So an Exeter or Crewe might be expecting a sum, say as a player they sold, makes a certain number of games. But will the higher side actually have the cash to pay on the agreed date?

Definitely a possibility. For example Brentford looked odds on to be selling Ollie Watkins this Summer for around £20-£25 million (ludicrous for a second tier player) before Corona hit us and exposed what a ridiculous division the Championship is. They probably would've got more than that if they got promoted too! I don't know the percentage Exeter would've got for the sell on, but it would've been money-spinning for this level whereas now it's no longer a possibility it'll be that high.

This will affect us to a lesser extent compared to sides on the Continent like Rennes, Hoffenheim, Salzburg, Sevilla, Benfica etc who have a reputation for being selling clubs. Because a lot of the fees are amortised over the length of the players contract rather than up front, and so missed payments this Summer are going to be very common, leaving sides relying on transfer revenue to be significantly out of pocket if the buyer can't pay. And given PL clubs (and to a lesser extent Championship clubs) spending is ridiculous, there'll be many clubs in those divisions struggling to keep up with the payments, which will lead to massive legal battles that'll dwarf the argument of what division you're going to be put in next season.

 

[Chris FGR]

Dale Vince giving it to Tranmere fans today - which I'm surprised at given we're the expected beneficiaries:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1260489928137412610

That will catch a few.

 

[The Terminator]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52644313

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

BBC trying to dress it up as an injustice and a tight call if Stevenage are relegated. I think Stevenage are good value for non league given how pitiful they've been this season. But I don't think Barrow would be robbed of a Football League place if they were reprieved.

Sky and The Athletic seem pretty confident Stevenage will be relegated, but the BBC are the only ones saying they might get a reprieve because of one reason or another...