Accrington Chairman on twitter (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Johnnythespider
- Start date
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
He’s gone off today saying that the PL is boring and EFL could be the most popular TV league in the world if it was run correctly.
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Yeah that's just insane.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Hes correct with regards the PL being boring though.....dull as fuck.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Don’t bring that up again. I think the answer is subjective.
surely we can agree that Accrington v Wimbledon hoof ball on a mud bath isn’t going to bring millions of viewers and revenue in though.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Ticketmaster refunds are taking a lot longer than usual at the moment so wouldn't worry. Each refund has to be done individually and they are rapidly approaching $3billion worth of tickets for cancelled and postponed events.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
He's right about the PL being boring. The EFL is a much better spectacle as a functioning competition.
Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
I think he's trying to protect the stadium from administrators if the club falls into admin, this way the ground cannot be claimed and belong to the town for years to come.
Nick
Administrator
I get that but surely that's also why some other clubs he has slated have done the same?
Why is he upgrading the stadium to separate it from the club?
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
Clubs like Derby and Sheff Wed have remortgaged for ridiculous amounts to bend the rules to get round FFP, I think he's upgrading the stadium as it needs to be up to a certain standard for league football and to honest I think it needs to be updated and perhaps bring in mire revenue. This guy seems to have the best interests of the club at heart and nit doing so for his own gain.
Nick
Administrator
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That's where it all starts
It would be madness to have the club and the ground in the same limited company
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
While I agree on the whole it does leave a lot open for stadium owners (usually club owners too) to make money off the club in rent.
If the owners charged a peppercorn rent and let the club keep the match receipts, F&B etc (but also made the club 'pay' for the maintenance) then it's fine to protect the asset. If not I just see it as owners profiting at a clubs expense.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The company that owns the stadium needs to keep itself going at the end of the day, if its responsible for maintenance or development why wouldn't it charge the club a rent?
Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Like I say they could set up an agreement (which could come under the term 'rent') that sees the club pay the maintenance and upkeep but not officially call it that to prevent any questions being asked. Trouble with it being called rent is it counts as income and therefore has tax attached. You'd really want it to avoid that if possible. So in reality the club effectively 'own' the stadium in terms of getting its revenue streams and paying it's costs, but legally don't own it so it's separate in case the club runs into difficulty and it could be sold of by administrators to any old Tom, Dick or Harry and leave the club either without a ground to play on or at the mercy of a commercial landlord and commercial rents.
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Anybody had the Accrington or Lincoln money refunded yet? Still waiting for my Accrington refund
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Not that it will make any difference I suppose, but he's woken up swinging this morning. Suggesting he won't take players off the furlough scheme.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He does make a fair point here that unless there is some solution clubs cannot afford to pay full wages with no revenue so behind closed doors will kill clubs
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
He's a hypocrite, if money is so tight he should halt building work on their new stand.
Irish Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
By the end of July though it seems that employers will be expected to make more of a contribution to employee's wages even if they continue to be furloughed. It seems the new season will kick off BCD so the only semi major source of income for clubs will be revenue from streaming. At some point it seems clubs will have to bite the bullet and stand on whatever meagre income they can generate. As the major outgoing is player wages, it is perhaps they that will have to take a short term hit so that clubs survive and their jobs are safeguarded.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It isn't that simple is it? He has probably agreed a contract for the construction of the new stand.
I'm struggling to see why there is vitriol towards him. He is spot on that behind closed doors does not work for anybody outside of the PL, I posted on here a while ago that paying full wages signficantly reduced income is a non-starter.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Behind closed doors games will kill off a lot of clubs us included it’s bizarre people think it’s a solution
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Whats the alternative? Players contracts still need to be honoured so if crowds aren't allowed and playing behind closed doors isn't an option where is the revenue coming from?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You keep furloughing as long as you can - he’s right isn’t he as soon as you play you lose money
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If you're furloughing most clubs will be receiving an amount well short of the wage bill. Where is the revenue coming from to cover that?
What happens in October when furlough ends? Doesn't planning to do nothing until at least October essentially write off next season?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The players are just like any other employee in other sectors, they'll have to accept the furlough payment and that's it. The fact the club decided to pay a top up is discretionary and as such can be withdrawn.
Furlough may have to go beyond October, don't fall in to the trap of thinking that October is anything other than an arbitrary date.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They don't have to accept anything. Employment law hasn't gone out the window, it's a change in contact terms they'd have to accept. Players are unlikely to be accepting wage cuts of 75%, at best part of their salary will be deferred. There's also a moral issue, although this is football so probably not being considered. The implication is that clubs will save money by letting player contracts expire and no signing player as they usually would over the summer.
Not playing games doesn't eliminate all costs. Clubs still have to pay in the region o 75% of player salaries (going off average L1 wages), staff for social media, ground maintenance etc will still be working. How many non-playing staff are here at a club like ours that are currently furloughed? Can't imagine we've got a huge number of staff at the best of times.
No games means no TV & radio money, no streaming money, no sponsorship, no advertising. There will be nothing coming in. So the question becomes what are the additional costs of staging matches and how does that compare to the revenue it would bring in.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I think the issue is if it's just a case of finish this season ppg then back to normal next season there is no issue but it's most likely that we start next season behind closed doors. He obviously wants the EFL to pay him to do that as Accrington won't have enough subscribers to their ifollow. Same issue we'll have being in the same league as Villa, that's football, bigger teams generate more revenue. If he refuses to start next season at all then they should just be removed from the league, I'm sure there will be plenty of conference clubs that would jump at the chance.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Players contracts actually don’t need to be honoured
