Players contracts still exist if the games are played or not so surely its to the clubs advantage to play games and get back whatever revenue they can? Furlough only covers a portion of wages. Surely we'd bring in more revenue from playing games than just claiming furlough and having to hand back tv money etc.
Doesn't our ticket price average to about a tenner. Sell streams for a tenner and with everyone stuck at home not allowed out of the house you'd expect a decent take up on that.
It certainly is better than ending the season now and I reiterated this the other day, but even with a streaming service, the running costs of many clubs will still be dire due to the significant reduction in footfall - and some clubs are going to be more effected by this decline more than others. This footfall also generates further income from sponsorship, corporate hospitality, F&B, parking, and mid-week revenue from corporate ventures which will all be lost. The point is will the smaller clubs be able to afford to unfurlough their players to play behind closed doors even with a streaming service?
So, how lucrative the stream will be will solely depend on the clubs' fanbase. Using Accrington as an example, a streaming service with an average seasonal average fanbase of around 2000-2500 isn't going to be as beneficial as it will for the Portsmouth's, Sunderland's or even Coventry's of the league. To make any kind of impact financially realistically clubs are going to have to play multiple games in a week, which is obviously already been discussed but then that begs the question of how many of those 2,000 - 2,500 fans will buy all the games in a given week when 2-3 games are being played? Will people look for illegal streams not not watch at all as they're trying to save cash? How many of those fans are families that will buy one match pass between 3-4? These questions obviously apply to all clubs throughout the EFL but it's far from ideal for clubs like Accrington who are already having to work off a small fanbase in comparison to other clubs in the league. Going back to our initial discussion, this is where the lines are a bit blurred on how viable MacAnthony's statement is about clubs potentially being sued. Whatever decision is made, not all clubs are going to benefit. That's a given unfortunately. Hence why I don't see where the case is for the more vulnerable clubs to be sued when a decision is effectively being made for them, during a time that is completely unprecedented. Certainly not unless their players willingly waive their salary for a short period - which I predict happening.
It won't be a tenner to the club though will it as the EFL take a certain percentage.
