Football's Magic Money Tree

[Chester Perry]

Football is returning though, it's being taken too literally, everyone knows it's only at the top 2 levels, whether that's right or not is immaterial. The rest of football can't return because it is deemed to be unsafe to do so, that's the point.

It's arguing over semantics.

It is a bit more than that, football without fans has shown itself to be very different (look at the low number of home wins in Germany) so in that sense football is not the same. Fans and players from less privileged clubs are being excluded from returning (whatever the reason) and the clubs with the privilege are seeking to use the opportunity to increase the focus on themselves and not the game, no matter what they say in public.

[Chester Perry]

No surprise that Spurs are at the forefront of trying to get fans back to games - Matchday revenue is now a huge cornerstone of their financial model and given that Spurs now probably derive more matchday income than any club in the league, they will want to bring it back asap to help with their on-field restructure, they are in danger of being usurped regularly by Leicester and Wolves. From the Mail

Tottenham lead the way on fans' return to Premier League as north London club tell the government they are keen to use their stadium as 'testing venue'
- Spurs are keen to use their modern new stadium to bring live sport back quicker
- The club have informed the government they're keen to test at the stadium
- Daniel Levy is keen to get fans back in stadiums after losing Joshua vs Pulev
By Matt Barlow for the Daily Mail - Published: 22:36, 12 June 2020 | Updated: 10:37, 13 June 2020

Tottenham have told Government they want to be at the vanguard of the return to live sport and entertainment events, and will allow their stadium to be used as a test model.

Premier League clubs such as Spurs are primarily focused on Project Restart and the return to competition next week.

They are also working behind the scenes to find innovative ways to adapt their grounds, provide season-tickets and bring crowds back as soon as the Government decides it is safe for large public gatherings.

Although this will not be until next season at the earliest, talks were launched this week between the department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the governing bodies of various sports.

Tottenham are determined to drive the agenda and have offered to work closely with the Government to explore potential solutions at their £1billion stadium, opened last year.

It is a modern and spacious multi-purpose venue with an advanced corporate sector and conferencing facilities and is well-equipped to maintain a degree of social distancing. Among the ideas mooted this week were for tickets sold in family clusters.

Spurs chairman Daniel Levy, having lost a money-spinning Anthony Joshua fight and two NFL fixtures and with at least the next five Premier League matches behind closed doors, is keen to see fans back inside his stadium soon, even if crowds are capped at a fraction of the capacity of 62,303.

‘It is imperative that we now all work together — scientists, technologists, the Government and the live events sector — to find a safe way to bring spectators back to sport entertainment venues,’ said Levy, earlier this month.

‘Collectively we have the ability to support the development of new technologies to make this possible and to once again experience the passion of fans at live events.’

By quickly adapting the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium for post-Covid live events Levy will hope to find the venue in demand from other sports and entertainment businesses.

Meanwhile, captain Hugo Lloris insists the enforced break will help Spurs after a run of six games without a win pre-lockdown.

‘It’s like a new season that is going to start,’ said Lloris. ‘It’s true to say we were not at our best but it belongs to the past. The team will look different. We are more or less all fit, this is a big difference.’

Tottenham have ground to make up. They are seven points adrift of Chelsea in fourth place and four behind next Friday’s opponents Manchester United.

Lloris said: ‘We are going to start again with a very important game. It is the final sprint and we want to finish as high as we can.’

[Chester Perry]

A long (16 pages or so, which is why it is not transcribed) interview with Simon Chadwick -

PLAYING GAMES IN THE GULF
How GCC Nations Use Sport to Build Power and Position

https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/ ... n-2020.pdf

As ever Chadwick is informative and enlightening, and the long format allows for a much deeper level of detail and nuance, which I thoroughly welcome

[bodge]

This pandemic has been a hammer blow to Spurs, i would think they will not be spending money on new players and it may hasten the exit of Kane, which will enrage their support.

[Chester Perry]

This pandemic has been a hammer blow to Spurs, i would think they will not be spending money on new players and it may hasten the exit of Kane, which will enrage their support.

I think that depends on how long the pandemic lasts and possibly more importantly for everyone if there is a second lockdown, though with all the protocols in place I am not sure the Premier League would have to pause again (big statement I know), I am sure they would resist it.

Financially they are well managed, they have secured a great line of credit at minimal interest to maintain cash flow and don't have to consider repaying bonds on part of the stadium until 2029 for the majority it is 2039. Like us the lack of an owner willing/capable of taking opportunity in the marketplace, could prove damaging in the long term, even if the clubs themselves remain financially stable.

It is no surprise that Chelsea, with owner wealth, have been first movers in the transfer market. I am sure the only thing stopping Man City and Aston Villa doing the same (more wealthy owners willing to spend) are the CAS hearing and threat of relegation respectively.

[Chester Perry]

Much of the debate about the proposed Saudi back takeover has been focussed on the Saudi issue, perhaps it is time some attention be focussed on the person who would be actively running the club - Amanda Staveley and PCP - If the current court case in regard to her demanding £1.5 billion from Barclays is anything to go by, then I would be reluctant to want her running my club.

This sequence of tweets from @TariqPanja over the last few days re the proceedings and statements made to the court are revealing

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 5335451648

anyone pick-up on the fact that for the last 12 years Staveley and PCP have encouraged the thought that she brokered the City deal for Sheik Mansour, when in fact she was working for Thaksin Shinawatra who was desperately trying to rid himself of the club.

"You have to wonder why for all these years, neither Staveley or her people have tried to correct misconception that she acted for Sheikh Mansour in Manchester City deal. First time that appears to have been clear is in her witness statement."

It does make you wonder if she is working for the Saudi's, Ashley or just for herself, Simon Chadwick, who has long been mocked for his doubts, tweeted this as if to say - I tend to know more detail than is generally known

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 6031876100

[Chester Perry]

This article in today's Financial Times is interesting - it talks about the factoring tap being switched off, this makes sense if the margin of interest charged is no longer available as profit for clubs on reduced revenues and high fixed costs. It just goes to underline how smart Spurs have been with that BOE loan - though it must be remembered that those funds are constrained to already committed operational costs and may actually restrict them in the transfer market unlike Manchester United's £150m overdraft facility

European football clubs’ route to easy borrowing under threat
Revenue hit from pandemic risks cutting access to ‘factoring’ deals
Samuel Agini

European football’s return to the pitch will salvage some income this season, but there is mounting concern at clubs that easy borrowing is under threat just as they need cash more than ever.

The obvious hit from the sport’s suspension has been to broadcast, sponsorship and ticket revenues. Yet this is, in turn, having an effect on an area of football financing that has attracted lenders such as Macquarie and Close Brothers, but which is threatening to unravel in the coronavirus crisis.

Clubs across the continent use so-called factoring deals to secure funding against future income. Teams including Italy’s Juventus, Portugal’s Benfica and England’s Leicester City have used such transactions in recent years, though they are more common among clubs outside of the moneyed elite.

But now sports executives fear being cut off from the flow of easy money.

“If clubs start going under, banks will just consider [other] clubs more risky and stop lending,” said one executive who led an English Premier League club until recently.

For many, the funding crisis is urgent. Phil Hodgkinson, owner of Huddersfield Town, has warned that “50 or 60” teams throughout English professional football could go under if fans cannot return to stadiums next season.

Lenders are mindful of the threat. Neil Davies, head of asset finance and leasing at Close Brothers, said: “We consider it possible mass gatherings may not happen for some time and that some clubs will face financial difficulties . . . we will continue to view each case on its merits.

” Factoring deals have been fuelled by the boom in broadcast revenues and a transfer market in which Europe’s “big five” leagues — England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France — spent a record €5.5bn in the summer of 2019, according to Deloitte. The financialisation of transfer fees, broadcast revenues and even season ticket income allows clubs to secure funding through relatively short-term facilities secured on payments due months or even years later.

Australian lender Macquarie, for example, in 2018 provided a borrowing facility to Leicester City, secured against £36m of remaining payments due from the £60m sale of Riyad Mahrez to Manchester City. Juventus, owned by Italy’s Agnelli family, owed €130m through factoring deals in 2019, with lenders including UniCredit, one of Italy’s largest banks.

Last year, auditor BDO found that 42 per cent of 12 Premier League clubs that answered its survey had raised funds against broadcast revenues, up from 21 per cent in 2017. A fifth had secured funding on future transfer income, up from 14 per cent three years earlier.

The need for factoring arises because broadcast revenue is paid in instalments over the year. A portion is determined by final standings in the table. It is also common practice to stagger transfer payments.

Competition among lenders lowered borrowing costs according to BDO. UK challenger bank Aldermore had built a £148.8m exposure to football finance by mid-2019 after launching in the area in 2017. Shawbrook, a rival lender, also entered the market in 2017, though it has since scaled back its ambitions.

Now the unfolding funding crisis at clubs is making some lenders more cautious, according to people who have worked on factoring deals.

“There will potentially be more nervousness in the market about lending against income streams that would have been seen as relatively certain,” said Mal Brannigan, a consultant and former executive at several clubs including Sheffield United and Derby County.

Richard Price, owner of New Century Finance, an intermediary that works with Close Brothers, recently completed a transfer receivables deal with a Premier League club he had not worked with for seven years, which he attributes to other lenders stepping back. “Those other funders aren’t around now,” he said.

Club executives say the transfer market is likely to seize up as teams have less cash to spend on big signings. “It’s likely clubs would rather hold on to players until their values recover,” said Michael Weaver, head of valuation advisory for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at law firm Duff & Phelps. “This results in payment taking longer, naturally causing a domino effect.”

Premier League clubs are also on the hook for a broadcasting rebate of up to £330m. One banker said this was the biggest risk in factoring because of the potential “financial vacuum” in cases where clubs have borrowed upfront on the income.

Manchester United expects to repay £20m to broadcasters, though few others share its options of £90m in cash and a £150m revolving credit facility. The biggest clubs also have easier access to traditional lenders and longer-term finance.

But the problems are greater further down the leagues. Smaller teams often struggle to secure long-term financing as the potential for relegation — and its effect on revenue — scares off mainstream banks. Already struggling with cash flows, many clubs could face more acute problems if factoring companies limit lending.

Charlie Marshall, chief executive of the European Club Association, said: “We’re still looking at a 20 per cent minimum revenue loss from what was expected this season and next season. And, in the worst case, it’s going to be double that and could even be more.”

[Chester Perry]

This is good reading as usual from the New York Times Football crew - just how has French football got itself into such a mess, perhaps this is why the English game as a whole has long distanced itself from an Independent government appointed regulator

How French Soccer Fell Apart
France’s Ligue 1 is the only one of Europe’s major soccer leagues to cancel its season. What nobody yet understands is why, or even who made the decision.
By Elian Peltier, Tariq Panja and Rory Smith - June 12, 2020

PARIS — Finally, it seemed, the battle was over. After a month of uncertainty and infighting and turmoil, French soccer at last had closure. The highest administrative court in the country, the Conseil d’État, had made its ruling: The soccer season was finished.

Except that it wasn’t.

While the court ruled that the final standings for France’s top two divisions would stand, it had blocked the relegation of the two clubs that had finished at the bottom of Ligue 1, Amiens and Toulouse, and commanded the sport’s authorities to explore alternative solutions. They have until June 30 to find one.

And then, a few hours later, Olympique Lyonnais — the club which had most ardently opposed the curtailment of the season — published a statement briefly taking note of the court’s decision and then outlining why, precisely, it was wrong. Lyon’s bombastic, belligerent president, Jean-Michel Aulas, committed his club to continuing “its substantive action before the Conseil d’État.”

What nobody in France can quite explain is how, exactly, it came to this. On April 28, as the spreading coronavirus pandemic was causing uncertainty for sports leagues around the world, France was the only one of Europe’s major leagues to have a degree of clarity: The country’s prime minister, Édouard Philippe, had stood before parliament and declared — to the surprise of most of France’s clubs — that the 2019-20 season was over.

Elsewhere in Europe, leagues pressed on with ideas about how to resume play, but it seemed a distant prospect, rooted more in hope than expectation. The pandemic was raging. The road ahead was filled with obstacles.

France, at least, had made a call. “It was the right decision for the moment,” said Stéphane Saint-Raymond, the communications director at U.N.F.P., the French players’ union.

Six weeks later, France is still alone. Germany’s Bundesliga returned to the field a month ago. In Spain, La Liga resumed on Thursday night. Italy and England will follow suit in the next few days.

All French soccer can do, now, is try to pick through the causes and consequences of its decision. French clubs have been left to wonder what the league will look like next season, how deep the financial damage will run. There is a more pressing question, though: why France took this path, and who — exactly — was responsible for choosing it.

‘A Ping-Pong Game’
For the owners of France’s teams, the answer to the latter is clear: The decision was imposed from on high. “Nobody votes to scuttle their own ship,” said Bernard Caïazzo, the president of Saint-Etienne, one of the teams that, in theory, benefited from the season’s abrupt end. One of France’s most storied clubs, Saint-Etienne had been hovering just above the relegation zone when the season was halted.

“Nobody in soccer wanted to hurt our own economy,” he said. “I can say that, on behalf of the Ligue 1 clubs, there was no consultation with us.”

The politicians remember it slightly differently. “The decisions are taken by the authorities in question,” Roxana Maracineanu, France’s sports minister, said last month, referring to the L.F.P., the body that governs French soccer’s top two tiers.

The testimony of Philippe runs along the same lines. “It does not belong to me to pronounce on the decisions of leagues and federations,” he said a few hours after delivering the statement declaring the soccer season to be over.

“It has been a Ping-Pong game between the league and government,” said Ahmet Schaefer, the owner of the second division club Clermont Foot. “The government saying the league stopped the season, and the league saying to the government, ‘You told me to do so.’ I have never seen that.”

The problem, for many, is that — in contrast to almost every other major European league — there is no firewall between the soccer authorities and the government in France. The L.F.P. ultimately answers to the French soccer federation, which is itself controlled by the sports ministry.

“Whether we like it or not, French sports is ruled by the government,” said Xavier Thuilot, Saint-Etienne’s general manager. “So when the prime minister says, ‘The championships won’t resume,’ it’s not a piece of advice. It’s an order.”

For his boss, Caïazzo, the events of the last few weeks have proved that French soccer needs a structural overhaul: It must, he said, seek to emulate the model of England’s Premier League, where the clubs are effectively shareholders in a private enterprise. “This crisis has shown that the way French soccer is organized doesn’t work anymore,” he said.

Not long before Philippe made his announcement, France’s clubs were busily preparing to restart. What they didn’t know was that the political tide had turned.

Scarlet Letters
France’s clubs submitted a detailed dossier to the government, outlining the protocols for their return to training, on April 20. The document concluded that, if the clubs could return to training by May 11, they would be able to play again in mid-June and finish the season before an August cutoff date suggested by UEFA, European soccer’s governing body.

“It was pretty clear for everyone that we would resume in mid-June and finish six or seven weeks later,” said Schaefer, though other executives believe that the clubs lacked flexibility. French soccer has a new television contract, with the Spanish broadcaster Mediapro, that was set to start this summer; it is worth a record $1.5 billion a season, and the clubs wanted to finish this season as soon as possible so as not to jeopardize it.

Around the same time, though, the U.N.F.P. — the powerful players’ union — was conducting two pieces of research. In one, they commissioned a sports economist to assess the potential cost of not resuming the season. The study found a direct impact of $435 million, with a top end that could rise as high as $800 million. Part of that, though, might be offset by a state-backed loan and the increase in broadcast income from the new rights deal.

The second was a survey of the union’s members, asking how they felt about a restart. About 80 percent said they did not wish to play as the pandemic tore through France. “We did not agree to play again without total security,” said Saint-Raymond, the union’s communications director. “We are not more important than the rest of the population,” he added.

The union lobbied the French soccer federation to abandon the campaign to return — a significant move, Saint-Raymond said — and, a few days later, the union’s co-president, Sylvain Kastendeuch, published an Op-Ed in Le Monde making that view public.

Emmanuel Macron, the French president, had consulted with a number of clubs, as well as the L.F.P. and the French federation, throughout the shutdown. (He had also reached out to contemporaries like Germany’s Angela Merkel, Le Parisien reported, perhaps in the hope that France’s decision would start a domino effect, and provide some political cover.)

There was already substantial unease in government at the idea of players having access to virus tests at a time when front-line workers and the general public did not; the pandemic was still at its peak, and French citizens could not even walk the streets without written permission. Kastendeuch’s intervention swayed the decision.

To some, his call sent precisely the opposite of the desired message. “If everyone goes back to work and is exposed to the virus, and soccer is still at home, we are underlining that it is isolated from society, that players are protected,” Clermont’s Schaefer said.

Two days after Philippe’s announcement, France’s shellshocked clubs held a video conference to discuss their next step, but by that stage they had lost what little power they had.

The league had formed a panel of three executives to negotiate what money was still owed for the current broadcast agreements, believed to be in the region of $273 million. But both rights holders, Canal Plus and beIN Sports, had immediately made clear they believed their commitments were over.

The players did not want to play; the government did not want the league to resume; the broadcasters had little interest in showing it if it did. The only way to stem the losses was to prioritize the new Mediapro contract.

Aulas and Lyon, worried about missing out on the Champions League for the first time in 20 years, wanted to keep fighting. So, too, did Amiens and Toulouse, who didn’t contest the ending of the season but who didn’t want to be relegated, either. For the vast majority, though, there was no way out. The season was over. Paris St.-Germain was declared champion.

Not Quite a Soccer Nation
Why no other major league followed France’s lead is open to debate. To some, though, the reason it has not reversed course could be found in a survey published last month by the magazine So Foot: Only 22 percent of people who regularly watch Ligue 1 games, the survey found, actively miss the competition.

“We are maybe not a soccer nation in the same way as Italy or Spain is,” one Ligue 1 executive said. “It explains why there has been no public outcry.”

Within soccer, too, there is something of a split as to how enduring the effects of the decision might be. A government loan of $255 million to cover the lost revenue from the final tranche of this year’s television payments, as well as offering to reduce clubs’ tax burden, may help. Still, even P.S.G., the country’s richest club, estimates it might lose $113 million because of the decision to go dark.

“No business can run without resources for six months,” said Caïazzo, the Saint-Etienne president. “French soccer is at a complete standstill. We are going to be less competitive than our European neighbors, no doubt.”

What is not yet clear is what the indirect cost will be. Much of French soccer is traditionally financed by selling players to richer clubs in England, Spain and Germany. The Premier League has paid French clubs more than $1 billion for players in the last five years alone.

For this reason, one French executive noted, what happens to the English season sometimes matters more to French clubs than what happens to the French campaign. Now, one study has estimated that player revenues — exports that can be worth as much as $900 million to French clubs in a single summer — may drop by almost a third this year.

For teams like Lille, Marseille and Lyon, whose finances rely on selling players, that could provide a hammer blow. Aulas, the Lyon president, suggested French soccer might feel the effects of the decision to end the season early, to take its players out of the shop window before a critical summer, for “five or 10 years.”

“Losers are always wrong,” he said in his first public appearance after the Conseil d’État ruling canceled the season for good.

His worry, now, is that he may be right, that the consequences of the season that did not finish, of a decision that nobody made and a fight that nobody wanted, will rumble on: beyond June, beyond the crisis, far into the future.

[Chester Perry]

The Mail with a progress report on the Newcastle takeover - it is quite thorough and appropriately undecided as to whether the takeover will ever complete.

The never-ending saga? Newcastle's £300m sale remains in limbo amid fallout of broadcast piracy in Saudi Arabia as Premier League ask buyers to address human rights record and murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi
- In April a £300m deal to sell Newcastle to a consortium was agreed
- Two months on the takeover remains subject to owners' and directors' test
- Sources close to the buyers had expected deal to go through last month
- Premier League have pursued piracy issue with vigour in recent years
- Sportsmail understands Premier League have sent the prospective buyers a 'forensic' list of questions to answer
By Craig Hope for MailOnline
Published: 19:00, 13 June 2020 | Updated: 19:00, 13 June 2020

It was in April that a £300million deal was agreed for Mike Ashley to sell Newcastle United to a consortium backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and including British businesswoman Amanda Staveley and property billionaires the Reuben brothers.

But, two months on, the takeover remains with the Premier League and subject to their owners' and directors' test.

Here, our North East football correspondent CRAIG HOPE talks you through the latest on what feels like a never-ending saga…

Why has it taken so long?
The Premier League, we are told, would argue there is no delay, that they and their lawyers are being thorough given the complexity of this takeover and that no definitive timeframe was ever given.

Sources close to the buyers, however, have indicated to us that they expected the process to be completed last month, while others inside the club had similar expectations.

Managing director Lee Charnley, for example, had anticipated he would have left the club by now having stayed on for a brief handover period only.

To that end, there is clearly now doubt as to whether the League will sign off on the deal given the time taken to make their decision.

What is the cause of that doubt?
Primarily, we believe, it is broadcast piracy in Saudi Arabia and the unavoidable fact that the Premier League themselves have pursued this matter with such vigour in recent years.

On nine separate occasions they have sought - and failed - to bring legal action in Saudi in a bid to shut down pirate operator beoutQ, the illegal steaming service that a soon-to-be published World Trade Organisation report will claim is directly linked to the Saudi government. It is said the Premier League even contributed evidence during the WTO investigation.

But there is more to it than that.
We are told the League have sent the prospective buyers a 'forensic' list of questions with subjects ranging from piracy to Saudi's human rights record to Saudi ownership of Sheffield United to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed inside the Saudi embassy in Istanbul in 2018.

As one source said: 'This is the most complex takeover the Premier League have ever been asked to examine and approve, they will want to cover their backs legally by asking as many questions as possible.'

That sounds like the League have a lot of reasons to reject it, what do the buyers say?
They remain confident it will be approved, a stance that has not wavered in two months.

They have been consistent in stating that the Saudi individuals who are subject to the League's tests have no 'influence over' or 'ability to fix' broadcast piracy at a government level.

Those in opposition to this takeover counter that it is impossible to claim that the Public Investment Fund - chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia - is not linked to the state.

And then there was our story in April that Saudi Arabia will launch a lucrative bid to secure the Middle East Premier League TV rights and so combat piracy in the country should the takeover go through. Without it, one source joked, the Crown Prince would probably need a beoutQ box to watch Newcastle play.

There is also, we are told, concern from several other Premier League clubs who believe broadcast piracy of top-flight football severely damages their earning power.

But some clubs, sources suspect, are more motivated by the threat of a strengthened rival, be that as competition at the top of the table or one less team in the relegation mix.

You get the picture - for every reason offered as to why this will be approved, there is a counter-claim, and vice-versa.

But you do detect a little more caution on the buying side given the time taken. They also believe the manner in which this has been subject to public debate has not aided their cause.

They say the leak to the Wall Street Journal in January - putting details of this takeover in the public domain - has more than likely delayed the process given the Premier League are now, for the first time, making a decision amid the glare of the outside world.

What about various reports saying 'it will be done next week' or 'within 48 hours'?
There have been lots of those in the past two months and, while you hope they were written in good faith, they were not right. That has been a source of anxiety and frustration for supporters who desperately want to believe this is all on track and Ashley will be gone as soon as possible.

But claims of the takeover being signed off by the League and the suggestion the League had no reason to block the deal have simply created false hope. In truth, no one knew what the League were - or are - thinking.

Supporters have asked in recent weeks why nothing has been made public at least acknowledging the agreement of the deal, be that from the club or the League.

Well, we were told in April that Ashley was ready to confirm the £300m arrangement only for the Saudis to insist they wait for completion, as is custom in their country.

This silence since has been a further cause of angst and annoyance for fans.

There have also been lots of reports about ambitious signings and new managers?
First of all, regarding the manager, those close to the prospective new owners have been consistent in their message to this newspaper that Steve Bruce will remain in charge for this season at least and that no shortlist has been drawn-up.

They have been firm in their denial of having spoken to Mauricio Pochettino and have even laughed at claims of a £19m salary.

The name that remains part of several conversations around this takeover is that of former Newcastle boss Rafa Benitez, who has close links to Staveley following her previous attempt to buy the club in 2017.

Benitez, though, has this week returned to China - where he is contracted to Dalian Professional - and the likelihood remains that any managerial change would not be immediate. Bruce, of course, would also have the chance to prove his worth.

For now, the focus is on getting the keys to St James' Park and completing the takeover as opposed to new managers and signings.

And that is why the would-be owners are also raising their eyebrows at various claims of them lining up transfer deals for the likes of Gareth Bale and Philippe Coutinho.

Indeed, any agent who isn't linking their client to the soon-to-be-rich Newcastle United isn't doing their job - to hell with the truth.

Those close to the consortium have stated from the start that this is a long-term project and investment in new signings would not be lavish, knee-jerk or excessive.

They have spoken to us again this week about Newcastle being the right club for them and of how they would be inheriting an establishment in sound financial shape. 'We know exactly what we are buying,' said one source.

What does Ashley make of it all?
We have heard nothing from him directly but we were told last month that he and his advisors were growing increasingly frustrated with the delay.

He thought he would be rid of the club by now and, with £300m banked, free to concentrate on the revival and survival of his other business interests.

There is talk of American buyers waiting in the wings but we have been here before with such claims and, in more than a decade of trying to sell the club, Ashley has only seen this Saudi group get as far as the owners' and directors' test. The rest, for the large part, have been time-wasters.

Didn't Ashley once call Staveley a time-waster?
Yes, in January 2018, after they engaged in takeover talks only for the deal to go nowhere. This time, though, it would appear Staveley has the financial backing she needs and, if approved, the only hurdle remaining will be for her and the consortium to transfer the money into Ashley's bank account and the club will be theirs.

Is Staveley's current court case of significance?
It is in that she stands to make £1.5billion if successful in her claim against Barclays, who she alleges owe her for unpaid fees in negotiating a Middle East investment deal in 2008.

But sources insist that the timing of the case has no bearing on the Newcastle takeover, other than diverting Staveley's attention during the immediate future.

Ashley's frugality, it would seem, has at least left the club attractive to buyers.

If this extends into next month, could results on the pitch have any effect on the takeover?
There are no clauses in the deal that allow for relegation or, for that matter, European qualification. The price is locked in at £300m. Never did either party imagine they would still be awaiting approval by the time the Premier League resumed.

It is unlikely given they are eight points clear of trouble, but if Newcastle were sucked towards the bottom three in the coming weeks - and the takeover remained unresolved - then it may pose one or two awkward questions for the buyers, that much is obvious.

They, though, insist they are committed to this project and are preparing behind the scenes to take control of the club.

Finally, what is your take - will it happen?
In reality, we do not know, the take of a journalist is merely instinct based on countless hours of conversation.

I believe the Premier League have a tremendous dilemma. Approve the takeover and they add rich owners who will invest in the League's product. They will also finally have the chance to combat piracy in Saudi Arabia by bringing the country on board.

To that end, it could be win-win. In addition, they will avoid the likely legal challenge should the takeover be blocked.

But in not allowing the takeover they make a stand against the alleged theft of TV rights they have long since fought to shut down. This would be supported by long-term broadcast partners such as the Qatar-based beIN Sports, as well as some Premier League clubs.

The government, conveniently, have kicked the decision to the door of the Premier League and, despite opposition from several ministers, insist they will not intervene.

As ever, the complexity of this takeover process is apparent the more you delve into the detail - and that is what the Premier League are doing.
So to answer the above question… at this stage, I'm honestly 50-50. And yes, that is a lot of words to arrive at that conclusion.

[Chester Perry]

Swiss Authorities inform Sepp Blatter that he is the target of a criminal investigation in Switzerland for suspected mismanagement of a $1 million payment from soccer funds. Again about FIFA business with Jack Warner, latest case follows the Caribbean TV deal closed by prosecutors a few weeks ago. - targeting other ex-FIFA officials too.

https://apnews.com/cea744aa9b63535833234aeacaf5c541

[Chester Perry]

It has been some time since the Telegraph has had a dig at the finances of La Liga's big 2 - the game there must be returning

La Liga’s big two are sleepwalking into a financial calamity
Sam Wallace June 13, 2020

Real Madrid resume their league season on Sunday at home to Eibar, home being the 6,000-capacity mini-stadium at their training ground in the far north-west of Madrid near Barajas airport. There will be no supporters admitted until the end of the season even should other Liga clubs be permitted to operate their own stadiums at reduced capacity, which is a curious position for the self-styled world’s biggest club to find itself in.

When lockdown kicked in across Spain in March, the Madrid president Florentino Perez decided to press ahead with the renovation of the Bernabeu stadium on the presumption that any completion of the season would be behind closed doors.

After all, what does the 73-year-old Perez know about building schedules and government thinking? He is only the chairman of Spain’s biggest construction and logistics company and routinely billed as more powerful than any Spanish politician.

Another misjudgement to beset Madrid, a membership club in which it seems only one member is allowed to be president. It was made worse for Perez by Atletico’s offer to borrow the Wanda Metropolitano for home matches, politely declined. If Real’s finances were precarious before the pandemic then one can only wonder what they look like now, although to read the rump of the Spanish press one would think that it is Galatico business as usual.

The great myth of Madrid’s power, and that of, Barcelona, is hard-wired into the psyche of football. Indeed, as the game has held on to solvency by its fingernails in the Covid era, so the transfer stories have continued - as if no-one dare change the music.

Donny van de Beek, and Christian Eriksen were Madrid’s January targets who mystifyingly failed to arrive, and now the Dutchman is a target once again. So too the Rennes prodigy Eduardo Camavinga - as if this great financial reckoning of Covid-19 was taking place elsewhere, in a country far away.

Wading through the farmyard effluence that passes for the relentless trade in Madrid transfer stories one can only cling to what to what we know about the club’s finances, as disclosed in its own accounts. Why the determination to begin the Bernabeu rebuild?

It is funded by a €575 million bond scheme and the club is still yet to disclose the subsidiary that it will be underwriting as the vehicle for that. It is, though, a matter of public record that they will repay the liability at a fixed €29.5 million per year for 26 years from 2023, by which time Vinicius Junior will very much be Vinicius Senior.

The club’s half-year accounts up to the end of December are ordinarily published in March, yet still no sign of them this year and no explanation as to why on the section of the Madrid website unforgettably headed “Transparencia”.

It was acknowledged in Spain this week that both Madrid and Barcelona have approached commercial banks for government-backed loans of €100 million and €120 million respectively. Both pay their players twice yearly and the whopping summer instalment, due on July 1, is looming.

In Madrid’s accounts last summer it was noted in the section “events after the reporting period” that they had spent €274 million on transfers – the likes of Eden Hazard, Ferland Mendy and Luka Jovic - with incomings from the market of €112 million.

This summer they are likely once more to have to generate around €100 million again in sales from the start of the new financial year that begins next month. They had budgeted for a €42.5 million gain on that wonderful old football tradition “effective evolution of the intangible sport asset”. The accountancy equivalent of a dropped shoulder, it was the value by which the club estimated the market value of their squad would rise.

That put the budget for 2019-2020 in profit. Twelve months on, and in the teeth of a pandemic they might just as well start printing their own pesetas. No footballer’s value could be said to be rising. The transfer market is collapsing. So where does that leave Madrid?

Their one consolation is that Barcelona’s position is even more opaque: they stopped publishing their half-year financial reports almost two years ago and the references to half-year accounts have been quietly removed from their own online transparencia. The response of Perez and his Barcelona counterpart Josep Maria Bartomeu to this emergency has been exactly what one would expect of wealthy custodians of huge sporting institutions. They have joined forces to make sure neither is liable for any of it.

The big two, as well as Osasuna and Athletic Bilbao, the only four clubs under Spanish law not obliged to operate as PLCs, have written to the Spanish government asking to be absolved of the financial responsibilities incumbent on boards of sports clubs. That being, they no longer wish their board to be personally liable for the losses of the clubs. It is one of the few downsides of their status as membership clubs – a status that is denied by law to all other clubs.

The financial catastrophe has rippled through Spanish football, with widespread use of the government’s “expediente de regulacion temporal de empleo” – ERTE - which allows employers to suspend usual employment rules and reduce wages and hours. Barcelona, Atletico, Sevilla and Valencia are all listed applicants and Madrid have received some aid for their television channel. Madrid and Barcelona have also asked players for cuts of unspecified size and length. Barcelona are prepared to subsidise the wages of Philippe Coutinho were they to sell him.

Meanwhile, Madrid resume at Valdebebas, an oversight of planning, albeit one that pales in comparison with the bigger picture of their finances and those of Barcelona. Still, through it all the addiction to the transfer fantasies persist – no doubt a welcome distraction from a different question.

That being, who will pay for these enormous debts? One assumes all who ask that will soon be reminded by the powerful men in charge that these clubs are owned and financed by the ordinary people who make up their membership.

[Chester Perry]

That story in the Telegraph followed this from yesterday

Staring at a financial black hole with an ageing squad, how long can Barcelona remain La Liga's dominant force?
Luke Edwards June 12, 2020

When Barcelona press play on a campaign paused since March, they will have a third successive La Liga title in their sights and a Champions League challenge to resume. Europe’s most fashionable club will display all its usual pizzazz.

Fast forward a few months, though, and things could look very different. While Barcelona may still have a swagger, a sparkling roster of talent, led by arguably the greatest of them all in Lionel Messi, behind the scenes nothing is serene.

When empires fall, historians try to pinpoint the moment when it started to crumble, and the decay set in.

Sometimes they are little things thought inconsequential at the time, masked contemporarily by triumphs. In other cases, it is something huge and dramatic that brings about the collapse.

Worryingly for Barcelona, there is evidence of both. Already stretched financially, the Covid-19 pandemic has hit them hard , at the worst possible time.

On the one hand, they have allowed their team to grow old, an ageing spine artificially strengthened by the enduring brilliance of Messi. The Argentinian is once again La Liga’s top goalscorer this season with 19 goals, as well as 12 assists. In ten out of the last 15 seasons, Messi has won Barca the title. With a two-point lead over Real Madrid when the season restarts this weekend, he will expected to do so again.

Messi, though, will be 33 later this month. Sport science can prolong a career, it cannot save one. He may appear superhuman, but he is not, as a thigh strain since returning to training highlighted. Even so, he is expected to be fit enough to start against Real Mallorca on Saturday evening.

At best, you suspect Messi has another two or three seasons operating at his exalted level and even then he will need to be rested and protected.

More worryingly, his fellow headline acts, Luis Suarez (33), Gerard Pique (33), Sergio Busquets (31), Ivan Rakitic (32), Jordi Alba (31), Arturo Vidal (33) and even Antoine Griezmann (29) can also be filed under ageing. That is a lot of world-class talent to replace. Barcelona have let them grow old together and will have to replace them together too.

You might think that would be no problem for a club with Barcelona’s wealth and pulling power, but there is little or no resale value in any of the above with the exception of Griezmann, perhaps. When they tried to sell Rakitic last summer he resisted, declaring: “I will decide my future, I’m not a sack of potatoes.”

Last summer, Barca signed the best young player in Europe, midfielder Frenkie de Jong from Ajax, for £75m to replace the Croatian. But in January they could not even tie up a loan deal for Valencia striker Rodrigo because of a lack of funds. They eventually signed, outside of the transfer window, the former Middlesbrough striker Martin Braithwaite from Leganes.

It does not take a historian to work out Barcelona are in financial trouble. When the president of La Liga, Javier Tebas, told international media this week that “90 per cent of La Liga clubs” will “not have any problems” financially during the Coronavirus pandemic, you suspect Barcelona were in the other 10 per cent.

When football was shut down, Barcelona went into a state of panic, immediately announcing dramatic, 70 per cent pay cuts for all staff and players.

Club president, Josep Maria Bartomeu, is staring into a financial black hole. There should be fear in his eyes. Barcelona’s wage bill is staggering: €671 million in their last accounts for all their sporting teams, although it is football that accounts for all but around €55 million.

“When the 70 per cent salary cut was proposed, Messi said ‘you have to do this’ from the first moment,” said Bartomeu, trying to find a positive amid the gloom. “The proposal for the extra contribution came from the captains, and it’s a gesture that shows their commitment to the club.”

Perhaps, but it also showed how desperate the situation was. Before the global pandemic, Barcelona were teetering on the brink of a financial meltdown. The fear, as we come out of it, is they are now in the midst of one and could take a long time to recover.

Barcelona needed to spend millions to adequately replace the players they will lose to the ageing process, a risky and tricky process anyway. Now they do not appear to have the money to do so. At the very least, this summer’s transfer budget has been wiped out, just when they needed to start the rebuild.

While Barca may have boasted of a record turnover of €990 million, last season, operating costs were an eye-watering €973 million and only £5m profit was declared. This season’s accounts are likely to read like a horror story.

Tebas has conservatively estimated La Liga clubs will lose a combined total of “€800m because of Coronavirus” and revealed the leagues is helping clubs “gain access to loans and finance.” You suspect Barca were at the front of the queue.

Barca had hoped to launch their renovation project by re-signing Neymar from PSG. It was revealing that this was precisely the transfer Tebas warned would not happen because of the financial destruction wrecked by the Coronavirus pandemic.

“Neymar is a big cash deal,” Tebas said, like an accountant warning of a larger than expected tax bill. “I don’t think it is going to come off...”

Real Madrid will be watching with barely concealed delight. They have their own financial problems and will play the rest of this season at their training ground as the rebuilding of the Bernabeu is underway. They will naturally be best placed if Barcelona’s Empire really has started to crumble, but others could capitalise.

Atletico Madrid have struggled domestically this season, lying 6th, but still knocked holders Liverpool out of the Champions League in March.

Third-placed Sevilla are eight points behind Barca and six adrift of Real, too far behind to challenge for the title this season, probably, but who knows next year. And then there is Real Sociedad and Getafe fighting with Atletico for fourth place.

Spanish football is back, but how long can Barcelona remain its dominant force?

[Chester Perry]

It would seem that post pandemic revaluations (and not just of players transfer fees and wages) are going to be difficult to swallow. Our friend The Esk suspects that while owners may not like it financiers will put lower values/higher risks on clubs and adjust the cost of financing accordingly. From the FT

Owners of AS Roma seek new buyers after collapse of €750m sale
Samuel Agini June 13, 2020

The owners of Italy’s AS Roma are searching for new buyers for the Serie A football club after a planned €750m sale collapsed due to the pandemic, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.

AS Roma’s existing ownership group, which includes the club’s president James Pallotta, are working with bankers at Goldman Sachs as they seek fresh bids, these people said.

The search comes after a deal clinched late last year with Texas-based billionaire Daniel Friedkin fell apart in recent months, they added.

Goldman has reached out to several potential buyers, including wealthy clients and Wall Street investors, but has not received any firm offers. Goldman declined to comment and AS Roma did not respond to a request for comment.

The collapse of the deal represents the latest fallout from the suspension of football fixtures in the wake of the coronavirus emergency.

Even with Serie A matches due to resume on June 20, steep falls in revenues for clubs in Europe’s top leagues due to lost broadcasting, sponsorship and ticketing income this season have made it difficult for investors to assess the value of teams.

Two people close to Mr Friedkin, whose family owns the Gulf States Toyota Distributors car dealership franchise and other business interests, said that the US billionaire made a revised offer of €575m in late May, which was rebuffed on May 28 by Mr Pallotta.

These people added that Mr Friedkin offered to pay in instalments beginning with €125m at signing. After that he would have paid a further €52m over six months and €85m by the end of the year. They added that he would have also covered €300m in debts by the end of the year and would have covered minority interests in the club with an extra €13m.

Mr Friedkin would be open to re-engage with Mr Pallotta, said a person close to the US billionaire, who added, however, that he was not going to put more money on the table.

“He’s not a hothead. If Jim changes his mind and comes back willing to do a deal Dan will sit down with him,” this person said.

One person close to AS Roma refuted the idea that there had been a counter offer and questioned whether Mr Friedkin had the money secured to pursue any transaction. This person added that conversations with other bidders continued and that there was no certainty a deal would be reached.

One adviser to AS Roma said that several people within the club were dismayed by Mr Pallotta’s decision to walk away from the deal. “It was a risky move to reject €575m,” the person said.

Joseph DaGrosa, a US private equity investor whose General American Capital Partners investment group sold its stake in French club Bordeaux last year, is among those considering a bid for AS Roma. A representative for Mr DaGrosa did not respond to a request for comment.

While resuming fixtures in Serie A, Italy’s top division, will protect broadcasting deals, ticketing income is set to fall, with spectators unable to attend stadiums due to social distancing restrictions. Revenue across the division is expected to drop by €400m this season, according to consultancy Deloitte.

Mr Pallotta’s attempts to invest in the club and increase revenues faced challenges before the coronavirus-induced crisis. AS Roma’s plans to build a €300m stadium outside the capital city have been thwarted over the past four years by a number of issues, including a corruption investigation.

Serie A is considering measures to provide more financial assistance to clubs, including engaging in talks with private equity firms CVC Capital Partners and Bain Capital about selling a minority stake in the competition.

[Chester Perry]

@SwissRamble takes his turn at the Premier League 2018/19 financial review - Starting with the big 6 - the other 14 to follow on another day

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0792396800

[Chester Perry]

and to add to their issues - The deal with their shirt sponsor finished yesterday and no new one currently insight - strongly suspect that will be determined by the league they find themselves in next season. Sounds like they may pick up some positive PR points in the restart though (though few will realise it is because the current deal has ended and just what a new deal is dependent on)

https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/bour ... l-expires/

There is still no word as to Everton's new shirt sponsor either

Bournemouth sign short term shirt sponsorship deal with Vitality (also ground sponsor - no way I will call that a Stadium) for the remaining games this season. Positive to note that Bournemouth like Everton have chose to move away from a gambling company on the shirt (both likely still to have gambling partners). from SportsProMedia.com

Bournemouth expand Vitality deal to cover shirt sponsorship
Health insurance firm steps up after club decide against Mansion extension.
Posted: June 15 2020By: Tom Bassam

English top-flight soccer side AFC Bournemouth have expanded their deal with Vitality in a move that sees the health insurance firm become the club’s shirt sponsor for the remainder of the 2019/20 season.

Vitality, which has been the naming rights sponsor for Bournemouth’s 11,329-seater home stadium since 2015, gains prime branding on the team’s home and away shirts for the final nine games of the Premier League season.

The brand also gains additional matchday commercial inventory including LED advertising and interview backdrop space which it is using to thank and pay tribute to NHS staff and key workers for their efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Bournemouth were set to play their nine remaining Premier League games this season without a shirt sponsor after ending their partnership with Asian bookmaker M88.

The deal, which was worth a reported UK£5 million (US$6.1 million) a year, expired on 31st May and the Cherries opted against extending the arrangement until the end of the restructured 2019/20 campaign, which gets back underway on 17th June.

According to the Athletic, Bournemouth chose not to extend the partnership after the UK Gambling Commission opened an investigation into M88. However, Mansion Bet will remain as the club's sleeve sponsor until at least the end of the 2019/20 season.

AFC Bournemouth commercial director, Rob Mitchell, said: “Vitality has been a great supporter of the club over the past five years and I am delighted that we have been able to build upon this at such an important and exciting time of the season.

“Vitality is a brand which has a focus on health and wellbeing with a headquarters in the heart of our town.

“So, for a club which prides itself on community and healthy lifestyles, this is a perfect partnership and one that we love being a part of.”

Neville Koopowitz, Vitality chief executive, added: “As a local employer in the town, we are pleased to be able to support the club, town and community in this way, and are proud to not only have Vitality’s name and brand on the shirts worn by the club’s players, but to be able use our sponsorship assets to call out and celebrate the vital role the NHS has played in past months.”

The club and technical partner Umbro are using the opportunity to roll out the team’s new playing kit for the 2020/21 season by showcasing it during the remainder of the current season.

[Chester Perry]

It is a question I have hinted at in the last 18 months or so and more often recently - the Football Today Podcast asks "Are Arsenal still a top 6 club?"

https://www.footballtodaypodcast.com/po ... top-6-club

[Chester Perry]

Tom Reed is using the current mess at Charlton to justify his call for the fan involvement in the ownership of football clubs - I find it telling that he is a Northampton Town supporter - Fan ownership can (it is still difficult) work in the lower reaches of the EFL (it is difficult to do so in League 1) but it has been shown that it virtually impossible in the Championship and the Premier League.

https://www.football365.com/news/501-ru ... bundesliga

There is also the fact that the cherished 50+1 rule is a longstanding element of German culture, from the origination of professional sport. It has never been that way in England, Even rugby which turned Professional in the last 30 years, was quick to drop the member owned approach, in the new era and their cost bases are more in common with EFL League 1 at the biggest clubs.

[Chester Perry]

For the first time that I am aware of Simon Chadwick puts his recent twitter thinking re sports-washing/legitimacy though the understanding of the understanding of the wider/deeper research area of Green-washing into an article, here using the example "du jour" the proposed Newcastle takeover - from PolicyForum.net

Newcastle’s takeover and the politics of sport
Is Saudi Arabia trying to sports-wash its international reputation?
Simon Chadwick 15 June 2020

Whatever Mohammed bin Salman’s motives in buying Newcastle United are, excitable fans are handing him legitimacy, and the deal shows the need for further study into states ‘sport-washing’ their reputations, Simon Chadwick writes.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the principal focus for sport has been upon ensuring the survival of teams, competitions, and events. As countries have locked down, revenues from ticket sales and television rights have dried up, putting many sports organisations at risk of financial ruin.

Whilst many have looked ahead with a sense of dread, there has been one English football club that has not. For much of the last three months, the Premier League’s Newcastle United has apparently been on the cusp of a big money sale to oil-rich Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

The rumoured deal is estimated to be worth in the region of £300 million, a sum that has had Newcastle fans aghast in anticipation of big-name player signings, and the club’s sellers relieved to be disposing of a troublesome asset. However, others with a stake in the deal have been considerably less upbeat about the prospect of it happening.

The Premier League itself has been grappling with a conundrum. It seems stranded between approving a deal that didn’t immediately appear to breach any of its rules, whilst at the same time confronting the prospect of sanctioning a transaction involving a country that has recently been accused of pirating its content.

At the same time, many critics of the prospective takeover have raised concerns about Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights, its treatment of women, and the war it has waged in Yemen. Hatice Cengiz, fiancé of murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, has even written personally to the Premier League asking it to stop Riyadh’s purchase of the Newcastle club.

Against this backdrop, there have been widespread claims that Saudi Arabia’s government is only buying the club to help cleanse the country’s tarnished image, a practice commonly referred to as ‘sports-washing’. This is commonly conceived of as being the attempt by a country to divert attention away from crimes and misdemeanours.

However, sports-washing somehow seems to be an unsatisfactory label given the attention the proposed United deal has generated. Rather than turning attention away from the country, recent developments have instead shone an intense light on its controversial activities.

Indeed, given the near-total absence of football from television screens and mobile devices during lockdown, the case for stopping the Saudi deal for Newcastle has been given considerable oxygen.

Some people have even suggested that the government in Riyadh has been taken aback by the voracity of criticism the proposed takeover has generated. If the Public Investment Fund’s intention was to artificially create a rosy glow around Saudi Arabia and Newcastle United, then it has had the opposite effect.

Past studies of sports-washing unfortunately yield no published scientific work on the subject, which suggests a significant opportunity for researchers to explore what is a relatively new and under-explored phenomenon.

As a benchmark for possible studies of sports-washing, there is a considerable body of work examining ‘greenwashing’, which is when a company creates a false impression of how environmentally friendly its activities or products are.

One study in particular appears to be of some relevance for sport. The authors make a series of pertinent observations, notably that different stakeholders take varying views of whether activities can or should be labelled ‘washing’.

This is important, because it indicates that like those who are accused of greenwashing, those who seem like they are engaging in sports-washing are not always actually doing so.

Some cases are in fact washing, which the authors would refer to as ‘genuine’ cases. In other instances, the ‘potential’ for sports-washing might be evident, but there could also be situations where there is no sports-washing taking place.

Assuming that a country – or an organisation – is genuinely engaged in the practice, this raises a few questions.

Why have they chosen to engage in washing, and what is being washed? Why has sport been selected rather than another medium of transmission? Who are their target audiences? How does the process of washing work, and as the perpetrator of sport-washing, how do a country’s officials know when they’ve achieved what they set out to do?

What has been a notable feature of the prolonged Saudi Arabian pursuit of Newcastle United is the role that fans have played in the process. Whatever the Public Investment Fund’s motives, fans have given them legitimacy – be they political, socio-cultural, or otherwise.

This has been most obvious on social media, where some Newcastle fans have started using photographs of Mohammed Bin Salman in their biographies on Twitter, whilst others have used words and images to accentuate their – and the club’s – associations with Saudi Arabia.

Certain groups of fans though, have been more circumspect in their appraisal of what the proposed acquisition might mean for the club. Indeed, several fan groups have explained that they will seek to use football as a means through to exert pressure on government in Riyadh, with a view to helping enforce the perceived changes needed in the country.

On the issue, the Newcastle fan base seems to have been split in four ways: active legitimisers – those exhibiting strong and clear support for Saudi Arabia and its rulers; indifferent legitimisers – those who don’t seem to care where the money is coming from or what it means, so long as their club wins; resistant legitimisers – those who are mindful of and often question the motives of their club’s new owners; and ignorant legitimisers – those who either know nothing of or do not care about the issues being raised by the acquisition of their club.

Sports-washing is not, however, just a Saudi Arabian and Newcastle United issue alone, there have been many other potential examples. The Abu Dhabi government’s purchase of Manchester City is another, whilst the staging of prize boxing bouts – such as that involving Anthony Joshua and Andy Ruiz Junior in Riyadh – has also been labelled as being an attempt at washing, and maybe this is true, but maybe not.

What is certain though, is that without more sophisticated analyses and nuanced debate, rather lazy labelling will no doubt continue, and those countries that do engage in using sport-washing will be more likely to get away with it.

[Royboyclaret]

Bournemouth sign short term shirt sponsorship deal with Vitality (also ground sponsor - no way I will call that a Stadium) for the remaining games this season. Positive to note that Bournemouth like Everton have chose to move away from a gambling company on the shirt (both likely still to have gambling partners). from SportsProMedia.com

Bournemouth expand Vitality deal to cover shirt sponsorship
Health insurance firm steps up after club decide against Mansion extension.
Posted: June 15 2020By: Tom Bassam

English top-flight soccer side AFC Bournemouth have expanded their deal with Vitality in a move that sees the health insurance firm become the club’s shirt sponsor for the remainder of the 2019/20 season.

Vitality, which has been the naming rights sponsor for Bournemouth’s 11,329-seater home stadium since 2015, gains prime branding on the team’s home and away shirts for the final nine games of the Premier League season.

The brand also gains additional matchday commercial inventory including LED advertising and interview backdrop space which it is using to thank and pay tribute to NHS staff and key workers for their efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Bournemouth were set to play their nine remaining Premier League games this season without a shirt sponsor after ending their partnership with Asian bookmaker M88.

The deal, which was worth a reported UK£5 million (US$6.1 million) a year, expired on 31st May and the Cherries opted against extending the arrangement until the end of the restructured 2019/20 campaign, which gets back underway on 17th June.

According to the Athletic, Bournemouth chose not to extend the partnership after the UK Gambling Commission opened an investigation into M88. However, Mansion Bet will remain as the club's sleeve sponsor until at least the end of the 2019/20 season.

AFC Bournemouth commercial director, Rob Mitchell, said: “Vitality has been a great supporter of the club over the past five years and I am delighted that we have been able to build upon this at such an important and exciting time of the season.

“Vitality is a brand which has a focus on health and wellbeing with a headquarters in the heart of our town.

“So, for a club which prides itself on community and healthy lifestyles, this is a perfect partnership and one that we love being a part of.”

Neville Koopowitz, Vitality chief executive, added: “As a local employer in the town, we are pleased to be able to support the club, town and community in this way, and are proud to not only have Vitality’s name and brand on the shirts worn by the club’s players, but to be able use our sponsorship assets to call out and celebrate the vital role the NHS has played in past months.”

The club and technical partner Umbro are using the opportunity to roll out the team’s new playing kit for the 2020/21 season by showcasing it during the remainder of the current season.

Looks that Bournemouth are some trouble currently which will require more than a shirt sponsor to secure an escape. Still, five consecutive Prem seasons was no doubt way beyond their expectations some ten years ago when they languished in League Two with a points-deduction and transfer embargo.

Incidentally, Chester, whilst talking Bournemouth, their Wage bill on the source material for the BetVictor article on the "We are one of the most economical teams" thread is as wide of the mark to reality as are the Burnley figures. Astonishing that Chris Boden allowed that article to be linked to the Burnley Express.

[Chester Perry]

Looks that Bournemouth are some trouble currently which will require more than a shirt sponsor to secure an escape. Still, five consecutive Prem seasons was no doubt way beyond their expectations some ten years ago when they languished in League Two with a points-deduction and transfer embargo.

Incidentally, Chester, whilst talking Bournemouth, their Wage bill on the source material for the BetVictor article on the "We are one of the most economical teams" thread is as wide of the mark to reality as are the Burnley figures. Astonishing that Chris Boden allowed that article to be linked to the Burnley Express.

While Boden's name has been used - there is no way of knowing of it was him that wrote the article - that is the nature of these conglomerates these days - I find it telling that Boden did not promote the article on twitter.

If Bournemouth get relegated, then they face challenges - the have a couple of key players out of contract and you cannot see, Ake and Brooks in the Championship. They actually have very little to show for 5 years in the Premier League and it is only this season that Eddie has talked about the need for a legacy (new training ground - which is now moving forward, new ground - which has stalled). By contrast Sean was chiding our board about that in his interview, both have done some amazing things as managers, and both are now deeply woven into the fabric of their clubs, but I know which I prefer (the one that has given his club a stronger and deeper foundation for the future while offering financial stability in the present.

btw - any thoughts about this or my response to it

Appreciate the very kind words about the podcast today - if there's a Burnley related one I'm always happy to contribute. Equally I would be happy to have any Burnley fans on a podcast hosted by myself. Thanks for having me on here, and for taking interest in my content.

[Royboyclaret]

While Boden's name has been used - there is no way of knowing of it was him that wrote the article - that is the nature of these conglomerates these days - I find it telling that Boden did not promote the article on twitter.

If Bournemouth get relegated, then they face challenges - the have a couple of key players out of contract and you cannot see, Ake and Brooks in the Championship. They actually have very little to show for 5 years in the Premier League and it is only this season that Eddie has talked about the need for a legacy (new training ground - which is now moving forward, new ground - which has stalled). By contrast Sean was chiding our board about that in his interview, both have done some amazing things as managers, and both are now deeply woven into the fabric of their clubs, but I know which I prefer (the one that has given his club a stronger and deeper foundation for the future while offering financial stability in the present.

btw - any thoughts about this or my response to it

Apologies, will have to come back to you on this later this evening.

[tiger76]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but here seemed as good a place as any. This could put the cat among the pigeons after what happened in France with the court hearing.

Hearts to mount legal challenge over Scottish Premiership relegation https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53053246

[Chester Perry]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but here seemed as good a place as any. This could put the cat among the pigeons after what happened in France with the court hearing.

Hearts to mount legal challenge over Scottish Premiership relegation https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53053246

it certainly fits in here - I suspect Tranmere will be watching with interest, though I wonder if employees made redundant as a result of off-field votes may have a stronger case for constructive dismissal by the league

[Chester Perry]

It is looking like the once mightier Kaiserslauten are heading for bankruptcy as they struggle with covid19 and life as a midtable third tier team

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 14998.html

[Royboyclaret]

There is some food for though there Paul, the only Burnley podcasts that I am aware of steer well clear of the structural and financial issues of the game and tend to talk more of recent times and certainly no earlier than the 90's and the beginning of our resurrection. That may well be in part a result of the age of those involved. Your talking the blues podcast has carved it's niche precisely because you have fans who can talk of 60+ years of going to the game and love of their club. Tony, who is the figurehead, prime contributor and glue on this site has similar length of involvement

Up the Clarets, the most popular Burnley fans related site, has avoided doing a podcast to this point, and the articles we have (thorough, fascinating and lovingly written as they are) are about historical detail, the fan experience or news that is of interest to fans. There are none that examine the current running of the club and especially none that look at the financials - though historically there have been many threads that have on this message board and it's predecessor - in part this is because the very dedicated people who run the board do not have that technical skillset.

This thread has in some ways become a substitute for small part of that and I have sometimes wondered if writing the occasional article myself or in conjunction with one or two others would be of interest to the members. As ever it comes down to time, discipline - as you well know a hobby can take over your life if you are not careful - and bravery to put your thinking out there for criticism (I think it is very different to putting out a post on a board, you cannot respond in the same way).

A very fair and measured response to The esk, Chester. In terms of a podcast I recall in a previous post you made reference to the fact that the Everton podcast was seen as an irritant to the powers-that-be at the club, and to be honest I'd anticipate a very similar reaction to a Burnley one from our Board. You might recall one of my earliest posts on this thread a number of years ago was bemoaning the fact that the current regime had appeared all too swift to scrap the AGM. Criticism of the way the Club is run is not always easy to accept, but nevertheless I always considered the questions at the meeting to be an important part of the general communication between the fans and the Board, but sadly that came to an end here some six years ago.

I thought The esk came across really well in the Everton podcast the other evening speaking very passionately about his club and he has become a very welcome addition to our messageboard. Long may that continue. As I posted at the time the only disappointment for me was the zero reference to his 'Football Shorts' analysis, but perhaps we'll hear more of that on the next podcast.

In the present climate for Burnley I believe we are well overdue some communication from the Chairman. We are facing the most financially testing of times particularly if next season continues to be played behind closed doors. I did my own calculations last weekend on the subject and, frankly, they make for grim reading. Some reassurance, or otherwise, from Mr. Garlick at these difficult times would not go amiss. He was first to point out the ramifications for our Club if this season was unable to be completed, but that was three months ago and the situation has changed dramatically since then.

[Chester Perry]

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, as long as it remains objective and all assumptions are clearly stated, who knows, it may even provoke some greater level of openness - even if it is a rebuke (though I doubt such a response would occur).

[Chester Perry]

This is an interesting though piece from SportsBusiness.com talking up the role of Private Equity and consultancy to get sports finances rolling back in - he has something to sell, and needs to sound optimistic, obviously, but there are some real nuggets of comfort to be found in this.

Bruno Marty: Sticking to guiding principles is key to building the post-Covid-19 future
Kevin Roberts - June 15, 2020

- Private Equity firms can partner rather than exclude established agencies
- Co-operation not confrontation needed to address liquidity crisis
- Swift return of live sport will limit financial impact on broadcasters

The notion that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger appears to be gaining traction across the sports sector.

The Covid-19-induced shock to sport’s commercial ecosystem hit at a time when the industry was already being forced to consider how it must evolve to flourish in a world changed by technology, and many senior figures believe that the ensuing hiatus has accelerated that process.

Among them is Bruno Marty, who leads the ProSports division at the Infront company where his role as senior vice-president encompasses overseeing the football, winter and summer sports operations, as well as media and marketing sales.

It is a position which puts him at the heart of deal-making and gives him a unique insider’s perspective on the way the sector is shaping up to the challenges and attendant opportunities it faces.

He remains unruffled in his approach to the crisis, firm in his belief that sport will return strong, that enduring, long-term relationships between rights owners and their partners will remain the bedrock of success and that winners and losers will be determined by the ability to adapt to changing market conditions and employ technology to engage with fans.

“Sport is an incredibly important part of the economies of developed countries and I think it will be back very soon. We have seen huge growth over the last 20 years in many major sports and I expect some of this growth will come back but at a more balanced level,” he said.

“In the short-term some of the sports will suffer and, depending on their ability to adjust and be innovative, some will survive better than others.”

With cash flows drying up, liquidity has become an even more important issue for organisations from top to bottom of the sports food chain. It is, Marty says, more than ever a time for co-operation rather than confrontation.

“Every company and federation is carefully looking at its cash positions. At the same time people talk about partnerships and long-term cooperation and in many cases this is now becoming a reality. You talk with your rights-holders and your key partners and find individual solutions. Every sport and event has to be looked at separately as there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. I understand there are lots of interesting talks (going on) focussing on the long-term and helping each other in the short-term.

“In general, federations are quite careful about their liquidity and try not to spend more than they have. A large amount of their spending is related to events, so if there are no events there are no event-related costs. With our clients, such as the International Ice Hockey Federation, good discussions have taken place because the intention is to work together for the next 10-20 years. You help each other now to (combat) any liquidity shortages.”

That said, the realities of any business sector are that a shortage of cash creates a buyer’s market and an upturn in interest in sport from private equity firms – which was evident event before Covid-19 – is unlikely to fade away if there are good deals to be done.

With organisations such as CVC already invested in prime rugby properties and now circling Italy’s Serie A it might appear that the new forms of ownership of sport could put the established agency model under pressure. But Marty feels that the model has evolved sufficiently to ensure that agencies have an enduring role.

[Chester Perry]

BeIN Media is to shed over 100 jobs in it's MENA region - this isn't about Piracy or BeoutQ (though that will not help) it is more in line with cutbacks in many media organisations and the massive cutbacks occurring across the Gulf States in all sectors - from SportsBusiness

Over 100 jobs to go at beIN’s Mena operation
Martin Ross - June 15, 2020

Pay-television broadcaster beIN Media Group is to cut over 100 jobs as the disruption and ensuing financial impact caused by the Covid-19 pandemic continues to take effect.

Employees to be affected by the measures include presenters, reporters and technicians, according to Bloomberg, citing people “familiar with the matter”.

The redundancy programme affects beIN’s Qatar-headquartered business in the Middle East and North Africa.

Commenting on the redundancies, beIN told SportBusiness: “In the context of the enormous and most financially-crippling disruption to the sports and entertainment industry in recent memory, broadcasters around the world are making incredibly difficult decisions in order to survive – and beIN is not immune.

“These forces have been compounded for beIN specifically due to rampant piracy across Mena.

“As a result, we have started a limited redundancy programme in relation to our Mena business – which will be as limited as possible, while securing our long-term future.”

In the middle of 2019, beIN laid off close to 300 employees in Qatar – about 18 per cent of its local staff – as the impact of the beoutQ piracy took hold.

News of around 20 redundancies at beIN’s French operation emerged at the start of June. The termination of around 20 positions is said to include 12 staff with permanent contracts and affects editorial roles.

[Chester Perry]

There has been much speculation about transfer price's this summer - but in truth we know little - Rory Smith in the New York Times highlights the self interest around the talk

The Quiet Bazaar: Soccer’s Transfer Market Braces for the Unknown
As clubs try to estimate the full scale of the damage of the coronavirus shutdown, this summer’s deals could herald a transformation in the balance of power.

By Rory Smith
June 15, 2020, 2:00 a.m. ET

Let’s start with a game. Here are two prophesies about the immediate future of soccer’s transfer market — that great bazaar of haggling and horse-trading, whispers and bubbles — offered by two executives at European clubs.

One sounds confident, bullish, determined to see the shafts of light amid the gloom. “The market for young stars will still be the same,” he said. “Maybe you will not see deals for people like Kylian Mbappé, but the fact that clubs are prepared to pay $30, $40 or $50 million for young talent? That will continue.”

The other sounds a little more downbeat. “I’m convinced there will be an impact,” he said. He had spoken to colleagues across Europe, he said. All of them were concerned by the financial picture they could see. All of them seemed to think they might have to sell players before they could buy.

“There are many clubs who would like to put players on the market to sell, and there are not so many clubs able to pay in cash or meet their demands,” the executive said. “I believe prices will go down. Maybe salaries as well.” That offers a glimmer of hope. “Maybe, then, we will be able to bring them down to a more stable and rational basis,” he said.

Which of those views, would you say, belongs to an executive who approaches the market as a vendor, and which as a buyer? Which interpretation of reality — precisely the same reality, built on the same data and the same figures and the same knowledge — is more likely to belong to Michel Louwagie, the chief executive of the Belgian club K.A.A. Gent, and which to Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, his counterpart at Bayern Munich?

That is the thing with the transfer market: Everything is a game. Louwagie, of course, wants to believe that values will hold up, because he has an asset — the Canadian forward Jonathan David — to hawk. Rummenigge needs to assert that values will come down, because Bayern’s needs to approach negotiations for the likes of Leroy Sané from a position of supposed weakness.

Neither, in truth, offers a full picture of what the first post-coronavirus transfer market will look like. Neither could, in fact, because Louwagie, Rummenigge and the rest of soccer are all driving blind into the next transfer window. They could not know, because nobody knows, for sure, quite how deep the impact of the shutdown will run.

It feels, certainly, like it is being underestimated. Over the next week, Italy and England will join Spain and Germany back on the field, making it four of Europe’s five major leagues returned to action, all of them hopeful that in doing so, they have safeguarded the majority of their television revenue for this season.

Of the leagues that have not — France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Scotland — at least three can at least take solace in the fact that they have new broadcast deals coming into play at the start of next season. That will help to make up the shortfall.

But that is only the start of it. Every team in Europe now must face the prospect of months without any ticket revenue, as well as attendant decreases in sponsorship value. Though we tend to think of the economics of soccer as entirely dependent on television revenue, that is an oversimplification.

Most teams, even in the Premier League, make only comparatively slender profits, if they make profits at all, compared to their revenues. Removing an entire income stream for several months will be enough to devour cash reserves — at the clubs farsighted enough to, you know, have them — or to tip accounts from the black into the red.

Stemming the losses from television contracts was crucial, but it was not a panacea. There is still pain to come. In many ways, the pain is only just starting.

What will define the fate of the transfer market is how clubs respond to that. In that sense, Liverpool’s decision not to pursue a long-anticipated deal to sign the Germany striker Timo Werner from RB Leipzig is telling.

In soccer’s pre-pandemic world, Werner represented good value: $60 million or so for a 23-year-old striker with an excellent record and blistering pace. Liverpool, of course, did not sign a single senior player for a fee last summer, despite winning the Champions League and reporting record revenues. It had the cash to spare.

Three months on since the shutdown, that is no longer the case. Or, more accurately, it may no longer be the case: Liverpool, a club run on a largely self-sustaining basis, does not yet know how much money it will have available to spend because it does not yet know exactly how great the shortfall in its accounts will be.

Perhaps, in July or August, it will have a clearer idea. Perhaps, by then, it will be able to loosen the purse-strings a little. But for now, Liverpool had no choice: as Jürgen Klopp, its coach, said, it would be absurd to be contemplating salary waivers for players and staff members while simultaneously spending $60 million on a striker. Those days, for now, have gone.

Werner will sign for another team with money to spend, thanks to a summer in which it kept its powder dry: Chelsea. It is striking, in fact, that only two major deals have been agreed ahead of next season, whenever it starts: Werner signing for Chelsea and Mauro Icardi, the Argentine striker, joining Paris St.-Germain for a similar fee.

Neither of those teams are immune to the financial damage of the shutdown, of course. P.S.G. has estimated its costs will run to around $115 million. That both clubs have felt comfortable spending suggests they are confident that shortfall can be made up elsewhere: perhaps by player sales, perhaps by a reduced salary burden, or perhaps covered by an owner.

In a summer in which UEFA is expected to loosen — temporarily, initially — the financial fair play rules that govern European soccer in an effort to enable teams to ride out the downturn, this may prove to be the decisive factor in the transfer market.

Those teams who cannot rely on the private largesse of their owners may find it harder to spend than those who, perhaps, can. The former group extends from Liverpool to Bayern, and from Juventus to Manchester United; the latter includes only P.S.G., Manchester City, Chelsea and possibly Real Madrid.

It may prove to be the case that soccer needs those clubs to spend, to keep some degree of liquidity in the market. It may also prove to be the case that this is the summer in which one model of running a club simply cannot keep up with the other. Nobody knows, not yet. Reality can still be what you want it to be. The game is only just beginning.

[Chester Perry]

Part 4 of Football Shorts by the esk is due to be released on Thursday - Paul says it be looking at how individual clubs will deal with their cash flow problems.

There is due to be a Part 5 but that will be focussed on Everton alone.

Though Roy and I might be tempted to have a go at doing something similar for Burnley when we see what Paul has done with his club

[Chester Perry]

Oldham have re-released their 2017/18 financial accounts - there are some dramatic differences as @KieranMaguire has found - not that the club think him worthy of recognition

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 4334605320

[TVC15]

Part 4 of Football Shorts by the esk is due to be released on Thursday - Paul says it be looking at how individual clubs will deal with their cash flow problems.

There is due to be a Part 5 but that will be focussed on Everton alone.

Though Roy and I might be tempted to have a go at doing something similar for Burnley when we see what Paul has done with his club

Do it Chester (if you have time).
Plenty of people are interested in this thread and yours and Roy’s analysis.

[Chester Perry]

As expected the WTO report into TV Piracy Saudi Arabia is explicitly damning of the regime and puts serious question over the takeover of Newcastle

Ian Dennis @Iandennisbbc

The WTO report says “should the Premier League approve the Newcastle takeover by KSA, it would be acting inconsistently with its own decisions and factual evidence as part of the WTO proceedings” #NUFC
@BBCSport

10:27 am · 16 Jun 2020·Twitter for iPhone

there will no doubt be a lot more to follow

[TVC15]

Chester - did you say the reduced tv money for this year is around £35m ?
That’s the figure I remember from your previous posts but I might be mistaken.
What’s the most up to date reported estimates and how is it calculated between overseas rights etc ?

[Chester Perry]

Chester - did you say the reduced tv money for this year is around £35m ?
That’s the figure I remember from your previous posts but I might be mistaken.
What’s the most up to date reported estimates and how is it calculated between overseas rights etc ?

It is dependent on a number of factors - if the restart goes well and completes on schedule - it will be around £170m this summer and a similar amount in the 2021/22 season (which will be a straight deduction in payment).

On the face of it that looks like a flat £8.5m a club this summer - which is what the big 6 want to happen, In reality it is much more complicated, if the sum is taken away from the overseas pot and then the distribution formula is applied - in that scenario (the one I expect to be used because it is what is defined in the rules) merit payments will be adversely affected so clubs in the higher positions are impacted more.

It is important to remember that the point of the 3 year cycles is to give the clubs a stable model of financing across 3 years so they can plan contracts and transfers accordingly. This situation has hit in the first year of a cycle where big clubs were expecting to get a large share of the revenue and had already committed to spending those revenues (as the 2018/19 dramatic increases in wages show).

Continuing uncertainty of how the 2020/21 season will play out - with/without fans has now been shown to affect commercial and tv income -and there is likely to be fierce debate over taking hits as they come or trying to smooth out the financial impact across this and possibly even into the next cycle. The factions will either be desperate for cash from anywhere and right now or wanting a less bumpy ride with losses evened out (though that is difficult to do when no one really knows what they will be).

In smoothing out the impact I would assume the Premier League would anticipate next season playing out like the restart without interruption but with some kind of TV rebate. Then recalculating the distribution pots over the full cycle, thereby having a more standardised set of distribution payments through the cycle. Any additional revenues would be taken as bonuses.

There will be other concerns though, such as parachute payments, solidarity payments and the payment to the PFA charity, which are all subject to calculations derived from the Premier Leagues distributions. I expect loud arguments that these should remain unaffected by the rebates, and if they are then the Distribution Pots become even smaller for the Premier League clubs

[TVC15]

Cheer Chester

[Chester Perry]

How far would you go to protect jobs and your club - the Chairman of Boreham Wood remortgages his house to keep the club afloat

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53027617

[The esk]

Assuming the outstanding 92 Premier League games are completed by July 26th, each Premier League club is expected to forgo £5 million at the end of July of this year and the remaining £11.5 million collected in season 2021/22.

If the season is not completed the whole £760 million becomes payable.

[Chester Perry]

Assuming the outstanding 92 Premier League games are completed by July 26th, each Premier League club is expected to forgo £5 million at the end of July of this year and the remaining £11.5 million collected in season 2021/22.

If the season is not completed the whole £760 million becomes payable.

Paul those are the average numbers, do you think they will be applied evenly or by using the distribution formula.

Also do you think the Premier league will want to even out the cost across the cycle in terms of distribution payments, and if so will thy also factor for anticipated rebates next season

[Chester Perry]

finally a senior broadcaster talks to the press, here is Sky's Sports Chief - from the FT

Sky secures rebates to offset losses ahead of Premier League restart
Murad Ahmed June 16, 2020

Sky is to claw back hundreds of millions of pounds from organisers of leading sporting events including the English Premier League, as the UK-based broadcaster seeks to offset losses caused by the coronavirus halt to live action.

Rob Webster, managing director of Sky Sports, told the Financial Times the pay-TV group was close to completing negotiations over rebates that “mitigate the impact on our business [from] the lack of live sport over the past 12 weeks”, adding the deals are “balanced and fair”.

The Premier League has agreed to return £170m to Sky, according to people with knowledge of the discussions, after the broadcaster allowed UK customers to pause subscriptions to sports channels during the hiatus in action.

The payment to Sky, part of £330m being demanded by the competition’s domestic and international broadcast partners, will be deferred until next season. This will assist clubs facing a cash crunch from a lack of ticketing income, with spectators unable to attend matches when play resumes on Wednesday.

Sky has also been in negotiations with the organisers of Formula One motor racing, English cricket and other sports events on which it has spent billions of pounds to secure exclusive screening rights.

“The vast majority of [rebate] conversations have reached a conclusion where the sport itself is able to continue to thrive and to have funding certainty over the short to medium term,” said Mr Webster, who runs Sky’s sports channels in the UK, the company’s largest market.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the dependence of the business model of pay-TV broadcasters, which have relied on the unscripted drama of sport to draw and retain customers.

The strategy has allowed Sky, acquired by US media conglomerate Comcast in a £30bn takeover deal two years ago, to become Europe’s largest pay-TV operator — with 23m subscribers across the UK, Germany, Italy, Austria and Ireland.

Over the first three months of the year, Comcast said revenues at Sky fell 3.7 per cent at constant currencies to $4.5bn compared with the same period a year earlier. Results would be “negatively impacted to a greater extent in the second quarter of 2020”, the company warned.

François Godard, analyst at Enders Analysis, said rebates would not fully offset Sky’s losses, which he estimated to be $800m in total, predicting that 80 per cent of customers have paused their sports subscriptions.

Mr Godard said deals between Sky and sports bodies represented a “sharing of pain between the stakeholders, which is what you’d expect from a grown-up industry”.

Frozen accounts will be reactivated this week, when the Premier League restarts. The pandemic will transform how games are screened, however: Sky will offer an option for matches to feature simulated crowd noise.

It has worked alongside Electronic Arts, the makers of the Fifa football video game, on technology that overlays live matches with the roar of supporters. A similar system offered to viewers of Germany’s Bundesliga, which resumed play last month, has increased in “popularity, game by game”, said Mr Webster.

Sky has also created a feature through which viewers can watch matches with up to six other people on a live video chat, allowing fans to react and comment on the action together.

Under pressure from the UK government, the Premier League has sought to allow supporters to watch all remaining 92 remaining matches this season.

As a result, games not due to be televised will be split between the league’s broadcast partners. Sky will show 25 games on its free-to-view “Pick” channel. Four fixtures will also be shown on the BBC, the first time Premier League games will be screened live on a terrestrial broadcaster since the competition launched in 1992.

The move was a reflection of “exceptional circumstances”, said Mr Webster, with Sky unlikely to make such concessions in future. “The starting point in all our discussions on rights centres around the nature of exclusivity, because that is what drives our business,” he added.

Analysts have suggested the financial hit from the pandemic will mean broadcasters will have less to spend on screening sports, dragging down the value of future rights deals. In the last Premier League media rights auction, Sky, BT and Amazon paid a combined £5bn to screen matches in the UK between 2019 and 2022.

“It’s too early to definitively look at how the sports market may evolve or have changed as a result of Covid-19,” said Mr Webster. “We need to get through this period first . . . then, through a very clear lens [Sky will] take a look at . . . what the long-term investment may be for sport.”

[Chester Perry]

As expected the WTO report into TV Piracy Saudi Arabia is explicitly damning of the regime and puts serious question over the takeover of Newcastle

Ian Dennis @Iandennisbbc

The WTO report says “should the Premier League approve the Newcastle takeover by KSA, it would be acting inconsistently with its own decisions and factual evidence as part of the WTO proceedings” #NUFC
@BBCSport

10:27 am · 16 Jun 2020·Twitter for iPhone

there will no doubt be a lot more to follow

Well it seems there is, the small matter of the ongoing proxy war and the Saudi revelation to the WTO that there prime concern is national security so couldn't prosecute BeoutQ - Simon Chadwick and @TariqPanja will guide you

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 5507241986

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 1139706881

Panja also reminds us that for all their indignation most of those who have welcomed the WTO's verdict have been sideling up to Saudi for quite some time, their relations with Qatar don't stand up to well either.

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 8425058304

Of course Tebas and UEFA in particular are not to keen on the Premier League having another mega club either, so that always has to come into the thinking

[Royboyclaret]

Well it seems there is, the small matter of the ongoing proxy war and the Saudi revelation to the WTO that there prime concern is national security so couldn't prosecute BeoutQ - Simon Chadwick and @TariqPanja will guide you

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 5507241986

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 1139706881

Panja also reminds us that for all their indignation most of those who have welcomed the WTO's verdict have been sideling up to Saudi for quite some time, their relations with Qatar don't stand up to well either.

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1 ... 8425058304

Of course Tebas and UEFA in particular are not to keen on the Premier League having another mega club either, so that always has to come into the thinking

Will this takeover saga ever reach a conclusion?

Newcastle fans must despair.

[ElectroClaret]

Will this takeover saga ever reach a conclusion?

Newcastle fans must despair.

Apparently, there's another bid in for NUFC today, by the head of US TV channel Clear TV, Henry Mauriss in the
region of £350 million.
(Sky/BBC)

And so it goes on...

[Chester Perry]

Apparently, there's another bid in for NUFC today, by the head of US TV channel Clear TV, Henry Mauriss in the
region of £350 million.
(Sky/BBC)

And so it goes on...

That has reportedly been waiting in the wings for some time (though I think the quoted price seems steep) - there is thought to be another very interested party too

having read this https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... udi-arabia and the fact that it is a confirmed bid - you would think that the Premier League have been given a get-out of Jail free card in turning down the Saudi bid

[ElectroClaret]

That has reportedly been waiting in the wings for some time (though I think the quoted price seems steep) - there is thought to be another very interested party too

having read this https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... udi-arabia ...you would think that the Premier League have been given a get-out of Jail free card in turning down the Saudi bid

That's what I was thinking, Chester.
It would seem an absolute godsend for the PL to end the Saudi controversy and sort out the Newcastle situation at a stroke.

And Mike Ashley would get to keep the £17 million non refundable deposit the Saudis paid up front.

So he'll be happy, getting the £17 mil, and an extra £50 million from the Yank.

Remarkable, if it comes off.

[Chester Perry]

@SwissRamble takes his turn at the Premier League 2018/19 financial review - Starting with the big 6 - the other 14 to follow on another day

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 0792396800

today @SwissRamble did his piece on the other 14's 2018/19 finances - not as comprehensive as the big 6 which is disappointing

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/ ... 9933929472

[Chester Perry]

It is not that long ago that I posted about La Liga's commercial sponsorship drive and the success that has gained in the last few years, here Sports Pro Media talks up la Liga's joint venture in China which once again is seeking to drive up the commercial income. I have said it a few times now, they have worked so hard and done so much while the Premier League was busy with in-fighting so the big six could take more and trying to find a replacement for Richard Scudamore, you do wonder just how much they have taken their eye off the ball

LaLiga’s Chinese JV focuses on sponsorship, merchandising in push to become leading foreign football league
Kevin McCullagh June 16, 2020

- Sergi Torrents, CEO of LaLiga’s new China joint venture, speaks exclusively to SportBusiness
- LaLiga to offer expanded sponsorship inventory to Chinese regional partners
- Licensing and merchandising expected to become major revenue stream

LaLiga is aiming to become the biggest overseas football league in China via its new joint-venture in the market with Mediapro and Super Sports Media, Sergi Torrents, the JV’s chief executive, told SportBusiness this week.

The first steps for the new venture will include bringing to market a new sponsorship proposition and creating a new e-commerce store and fan loyalty programme. Further ahead, extensive new online and offline activation is being considered, including esports projects, deepening the league’s existing involvement in grassroots football and opening retail outlets.

The launch of Spanish Football Commercial & Marketing Company (SFCM) was announced last month. It sees LaLiga join forces with long-term commercial partner Mediapro, the Barcelona-based, Chinese-owned global sports marketing agency, and another existing partner, Chinese sports marketing agency Super Sports Media. SSM is owned by Chinese media and entertainment group DDMC, and is LaLiga’s current media rights partner in China, under an agreement covering the six seasons from 2019-20 to 2024-25.

SFCM will commercialise LaLiga’s sponsorship and licensing rights – but not its media rights – over a 15-year period starting this year. The company is owned 49 per cent by LaLiga and 51 per cent by a new company jointly owned by Mediapro and SSM. Earnings from the JV will be split between the owners in the same proportions.

The JV was a necessary step in order to realise LaLiga’s ambitions for rapid growth in China, Torrents says.

“Through this strategy and the partners that we have chosen, this will allow us to grow faster…not only because we have investment capacity, but also because of the profile of our partners. You have Mediapro…Spain-based, but global, with different departments, different companies, that bring different kinds of expertise to the table.”

Of SSM, he says: “They can bring us deep local expertise, not only in the media business…They have a commercial team, they’ve been in the market for many years and are a truly local company…Even if you’ve been many years in the market, like LaLiga or in my own personal case, it is important to have a partner that understands completely how to develop locally.”

Torrents, who is from Spain, has been working in China for 15 years. He moved there with Spanish sports marketing firm 11, before joining LaLiga’s Chinese operation in 2014.

NBA China, the American basketball league’s highly successful Chinese subsidiary, is the obvious comparison for SFCM, but Torrents says his company is a different beast. NBA China was launched in 2008 after the league secured investment from five partners, including sports broadcaster ESPN and several Chinese financial firms, and built upon an already very strong position in the market.

“What we are doing is creating a JV with industrial partners, partners that are going to be in the day-by-day of the operation – that’s the main difference,” Torrents says. “We believe it’s the best equation for what we are doing here in China.”

China is particularly important among LaLiga’s international markets, not just because of the huge revenue potential, but also because today it is the birthplace of trends that will inevitably spread to other regions, Torrents says.

“China is a country, market and economy that evolves very fast…The sports marketing industry is evolving, and things that happen here, are going to happen later in other markets. So this is a very important market for us in that sense.”

Sponsorship proposition
Sponsorship will be the main revenue driver for the business, in the short-term at least. SFCM will go to market with a much bigger set of assets than LaLiga was able to offer in the past. Torrents describes the offer as a “more 360-degree solution for companies interested in working with us”.

“Our sponsorship package was not as complete as right now. Before, we were offering IP rights, a little bit of activation on-screen, some small events. Now, we have offline events, we’re going to have online events, we’re going to have advertising assets and we’re going to have media assets in this sponsorship package. So companies will have many more assets.”

LaLiga is selling Chinese regional sponsorships in four tiers in China. From top to bottom, they are: LaLiga Official Partner, LaLiga Official Sponsor, LaLiga Official Supplier, LaLiga Official License Partner.

Assets available in the packages will include:
- Use of LaLiga IP, club crests and selected player imagery within China on print, television and digital platforms
- Perimeter board advertising during matches, by way of digital board replacement technology – so only viewers in China or other selected markets will see the sponsors’ ads
- Branding on weekly social media highlights clips
- Rights to use LaLiga footage in television commercials
- Rights within iQiyi streaming coverage of LaLiga matches
- Digital rights on the LaLiga China website and social media accounts
- Launch events and activation opportunities at other official events including ‘viewing parties’.

LaLiga is also looking to develop esports projects in the market, alongside existing partner EA Sports, the publisher of the Fifa game, and potentially also in other, non-football games.

“The world of esports is huge and the opportunities in this area are very certain,” Torrents says.

E-commerce opportunity
Alongside sponsorship, LaLiga sees potential in e-commerce. Torrents expects online merchandise sales to account for 15 per cent of the JV’s income as early as year two or three and to grow from there.

The next step is the creation of a digital presence that incorporates an online store and a fan loyalty programme. This will build on LaLiga’s digital work in China in recent years, which has largely focused on its social media presence. It has almost five million followers across the four main social networks, Weibo, WeChat, Toutiao and Douyin.

“We’ve been pushing content on social networks to create emotional attachment with fans. The next step is to try to enlarge this community through the loyalty programme, and create the shop and commercial strategy,” Torrents says. “This is the biggest e-commerce market in the world, bigger than the US.”

China’s e-commerce sector – which had $1.9tn (€1.7tn) in sales in 2019 – is growing quickly and is a hive of innovation. SportBusiness reported recently on how sports properties are getting involved in the growing trend of live e-commerce streams.

The e-commerce plan, says Torrents, is a sign of the changing nature of sports marketing. “You have to be prepared to commercialise in a different way. Consumer trends are changing, and it’s really a time to be investing in those areas, to learn and be ready for these changes.”

Simple ambition
Torrents summarises the thinking behind SFCM in three points. The first is that the venture in China is a necessary, evolutionary step forward for the league’s presence in the market. Second is that the JV will enable commercial and revenue growth. Third, “to do that we need to go local, to invest in more local activation, create different products and different solutions for our partners and clients.”

He does not want to comment on specific revenue targets or other goals for the coming years. But there is a simple, overarching ambition.
“Most important, I believe, is to be, among the five big (European football) leagues, the first and most successful here in China, the most influential.”

[Chester Perry]

We are less than 30 mins away from the restart, but why has it happened - SprortsProMedia.com looks at the legal issues around it.

Answering the legal questions about the Premier League’s closed-doors return
As English soccer’s top flight resumes in empty stadiums, Satish Khandke and Danielle Sharkey of London law firm Charles Russell Speechlys outline some of the legal motivations behind the competition’s return and what challenges could still lie ahead.
Posted: June 17 2020By: Sam Carp

The Premier League’s powerbrokers will no doubt breathe a collective sigh of relief should the 2019/20 season arrive at a safe conclusion. The return of the competition on 17th June will be a welcome sight after three months on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but those at English soccer’s top flight will be aware that there could yet be choppy waters to navigate.

The determination with which the Premier League has pursued a resumption has at times seemed out of touch with the severity of the health crisis going on around it, but it has perhaps been a reflection of how much is at stake. The amount the Premier League’s 20 clubs will owe to the competition’s domestic and overseas broadcast partners – UK£330 million even if the season is finished - has been well documented, but there are other complex legal challenges the league is likely to face whether the season is completed on the pitch or not.

SportsPro spoke with Satish Khandke and Danielle Sharkey of London-based law firm Charles Russell Speechlys to get some answers to the legal questions still hanging over the Premier League as it gets back underway.

What legal complications has the Premier League has avoided for now?
According to Khandke, the desire to avoid the legal complications of a curtailed season will have been “driving as much as anything” the Premier League’s need to at least attempt to complete the ongoing campaign.

“When different scenarios were being aired,” he begins, “you saw the parties that could see that they might potentially be the ones that would suffer the most already raising the spectre of legal challenge if the competition weren’t concluded on the basis that they wanted to see it.”

Indeed, with the destination of the Premier League trophy a mere formality – Liverpool need just two wins from their remaining nine games to win the league - the most vocal opposition to a curtailed campaign has come from clubs who face relegation from the world’s most lucrative domestic soccer league.

Whatever the solution, there are going to be parties who feel aggrieved.

Just four points separate Brighton & Hove Albion in 15th and 19th-placed Aston Villa, whose chief executive Christian Purslow has described the risk of relegation as a “UK£200 million catastrophe”. The financial implications make cries of foul play inevitable if clubs are relegated without being able to fulfil their full slate of fixtures.

“Every club started the season with the expectation that they would play 38 games, the competition would be concluded, and if they were relegated on the basis of those results, then that would be a fair outcome,” Khandke continues. “Anything that didn’t involve the conclusion of the competition and particularly if clubs were still to be relegated based on their league position at the point where the competition ended or on points per game, that wasn’t their expectation when they entered into the competition back in August.

“So, anything which would arbitrarily decide the outcome of the competition on that basis is potentially open to legal challenge, because ultimately the participants weren’t receiving or weren’t getting what they expected to under their contractual arrangement between the clubs and the leagues.”

What about the leagues that have ended their seasons?
Sharkey points out that the Premier League resuming has not actually extinguished all of those potential legal challenges, hinting at the fact that there remains a possibility the competition could be suspended again if a significant number of those involved test positive for coronavirus or if there is another spike in cases in the UK.

Should the Premier League be forced to cancel the season, it need only look at France’s Ligue de Football Professionnel (LFP) and the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) to see some of the legal challenges that could lie in wait. Top-flight French club Olympique Lyonnais have already lost their appeal over the decision to end Ligue 1 early, while relegated Scottish Premiership outfit Heart of Midlothian have also launched a legal challenge after a final attempt at reconstruction of the SPFL failed.

“The clubs that have been relegated from the Scottish Premiership at the end of the curtailed season could bring the same argument that this isn’t what they signed up for,” notes Khandke. “And also, given that the Bundesliga and potentially now the Premier League are going to be played to a conclusion, albeit under different conditions, that potentially strengthens their hand to say that the SPFL could have done the same thing: waited, and then concluded the competition in the same way that those other leagues have.

“Then the SPFL would have to demonstrate that actually they had different considerations that were particular to their circumstances, their leagues, their clubs, which meant that wasn’t a reasonable course to take. But it shifts the burden onto those leagues to defend their decision to actually end their competition early and not do what the Premier League, Bundesliga etcetera have done.”

Could legal challenges hold up the start of next season?
Like most competitions, the Premier League is hoping to complete its 2019/20 campaign within a tight window to ensure that next season can start as close to the originally intended date as possible.

Sharkey warns that even if the season is completed, there is the potential for legal disputes from the 2019/20 campaign to continue “for many months” and “even years” in some instances relating to a breach or wrongful termination of contract claim.

However, she is quick to alleviate any fears about potential legal action having an impact on the beginning of the 2020/21 season, noting that aggrieved clubs could be compensated for financially rather than by being reinstated to the league.

They’re balancing the need to protect the participants as much as possible against actually having the sport be as close to the game that everyone understands.

“There is nothing that would prevent or delay the start of the season based on any kind of ongoing litigation – it would kind of rumble on in the background,” she says. “The flipside of that is if one of the teams who was involved in litigation decided to take the standpoint that it wasn’t going to partake in the league for whatever reason, then it might find itself in breach of certain provisions or contractual obligations in of itself.”

“Every league would want to start it’s 2020/21 season when it’s scheduled to do so,” Khandke adds. “So the only possibility of that not happening would be an injunction being supplied for by one of those aggrieved clubs, but the only way you’re going to get that is if the club can show that it can’t be properly compensated for by way of damages.”

Why did the Premier League change its tune on neutral venues?
The Premier League originally told its clubs on 1st May that the only way to complete the 2019/20 campaign would be by using neutral venues, but that stance was soon softened when a number of clubs publicly opposed the idea, claiming that it would compromise the sporting integrity of the competition.

In the end, only two matches were earmarked for neutral venues when the new fixture list up until 2nd July was announced on 5th June, and it was later confirmed that one of those games, the Merseyside derby between Everton and Liverpool, could take place at the Toffees’ Goodison Park.

By changing its tune on neutral venues, Khandke says the Premier League avoided a situation where it could be accused of having “favoured particular groups over other groups deliberately”.

“The overall takeaway is that it’s impossible to complete the season as it was originally intended, and whatever the solution, there are going to be parties who feel aggrieved,” he adds. “It’s just a question of minimising the number of aggrieved parties and the effect of the solution on those aggrieved parties.

“By moving the competition as close as possible to the conditions that were in place in August, that’s what they’re doing. So by having home and away rather than all neutral fixtures, they’re moving closer to what was intended in August.”

What other legal issues are there around returning behind closed doors?
In short, lots.

Broadcasters have argued that even though the Premier League is looking to complete the season, the conditions under which the campaign will be finished will be different to those outlined in the competition’s media rights contracts, thus reducing the value of the live product.

“Some of the clubs have raised a counter argument that because fans can’t actually attend those fixtures, that will increase the premium of the televised matches, and UK broadcasters can show more matches than they would have otherwise,” Sharkey notes.

Sponsors will likely have similar questions over the value they are receiving from games being played behind closed doors.

“If it’s like the broadcast, arguably they would be receiving more value,” Khandke adds. “You may only be able to determine that once the games have been broadcast and there will be measurements as to how many viewers there are for those games and whether the brands are actually getting more exposure from those games than they would have done had the season continued as normal.”

Sport is making this decision to return when there’s no real cogent scientific evidence or data to back up conclusions.

Above all else, though, the Premier League and its clubs have to ensure that they are prioritising the health and safety of players, staff and all other individuals that make up the 300 required for games to take place in stadiums without fans.

“As the thing progresses, those players will still be owed an ongoing duty of care to ensure everything is being done to make sure they’re not exposed to a higher risk than is reasonable,” says Khandke. “For the games to be televised and put on, you’ve got a certain number of staff that need to be present at the games, and the host club will owe those people a duty of care as well.

“There’s been some discussion about the protocols that are in place, but it’s all pretty much focused on the players in terms of what people are looking at. But clubs and the leagues also have to be aware of everyone else that is involved in getting those games on.”

Who would be liable if a player caught coronavirus and passed it on?
The Premier League became something of a figure of fun on social media when it announced the first phase of its return to training plan, which included a ban on tackling. However, it highlighted the genuine risks – from a legal as well as health perspective - associated with a contact sport getting back to business during a pandemic.

With competitive action now getting back underway, even stricter protocols are in place. Players have been told not to spit, shake hands, clear their nose or surround match officials, while they will also be directed towards a ‘celebration camera’ after scoring in closed-doors matches. Upon arrival at the ground, players will enter through a ‘sterile route’ to expanded dressing rooms. They have also been instructed to stagger their exits from the tunnel and minimise close contact during warm-ups.

“Sport is making this decision to return when there’s no real cogent scientific evidence or data to back up conclusions,” Sharkey observes. “So when you’re looking at whether the Premier League has gone into overdrive in terms of the rules and the protocols that they’ve described, I think absolutely not.

Will this change how the Premier League draws up its contracts in the future?
However the remainder of the season plays out, one thing that seems certain is that the pandemic will have a lasting impact on how the Premier League and other sports phrase their various contractual agreements in the future.

“Any sports businesses or organisations should review their contracts and rules to assess how those might stand up if there were to be another lockdown or should other exceptional circumstances arise,” Khandke states.

“Most have already seen how the current lockdown has impacted them, so they can now look to agree with the other parties to their contracts what will happen if such exceptional circumstances arise again, and then build provisions into their contracts to reflect that, rather than facing the uncertainty that has been prevalent during this lockdown.

“Of course, there could always be other unforeseen consequences if similar exceptional situations do arise in the future, but at least those should be more limited.”

“If they are found at a later stage not to have taken all reasonable precautions and measures to protect those that are playing or involved in their sport, then there absolutely is a possibility that there could be a legal challenge, and the different consequences of that are varied depending on what the breaches are – they range from simple fines or companies and individuals potentially being liable to imprisonment.”

Despite the stringent protocols in place, several players have been uneasy about returning to action during the health crisis. Troy Deeney (below) was among a handful of players who opted not to immediately resume training due to fears over their families’ health, while the Watford captain also raised concerns about the added dangers that coronavirus might pose towards black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) players.

If a player were to contract Covid-19 either during training or a game and take it home, it seems the lines are blurred.

“In your worst case scenario, where a footballer contracts Covid during a game, during training, takes it home and the worst happens, it’s not a strict liability offence,” Khandke points out. “So that doesn’t necessarily mean that [the player] has a claim against the club or the league. There’s no exact science right now. The duty of care, they just have to show they took the steps at the time – based on the knowledge that is available now – that were reasonable.

“There’s an urge even from government to resume sport. So they’re balancing that against the need to discharge their duty of care. They’re clearly balancing the need to protect the participants as much as possible against actually having the sport be as close to the game that everyone understands.”

[tiger76]

As you mentioned the legal challenges launched in Scotland here's more details.

Hearts and Partick Thistle are claiming £10m from the SPFL should the courts rule not to overturn their relegations.

The pair lodged a petition with the Court of Session on Wednesday, with Hearts claiming £8m and Thistle £2m.

In a joint statement, they say they "have no wish to disrupt" Scottish football, but "reserve the right" to try to delay the Premiership season.

The pair had their demotions confirmed on Monday when clubs failed to support league reconstruction.

It followed a vote to curtail the term, with Hearts bottom of the Premiership and Thistle last in the Championship.

The pair said the action does not aim to "unravel the fee payments" to clubs or challenge the declaration of champions.

Their statement says their objective is "to reduce the unfair resolution insofar as it changed the SPFL's rules on promotion and relegation", and if that fails then they will seek £10m between them in compensation as an alternative remedy.

"As matters stand, we have not asked the Court to grant an interim interdict which would prevent next [Premiership] season commencing on 1 August," the statement said. "However, we have to reserve our right to do so in the event that becomes necessary.

"We would emphasise instead that we have no wish to disrupt Scottish football but rather our aim is to have the proceedings litigated to a conclusion as quickly as possible."

The SPFL now has seven days to respond to the petition, and a spokesman for the league said its solicitors are "studying this carefully".

Thistle previously said they could not afford the six-figure legal costs but an offer to fund court action led to them joining Hearts in challenging the SPFL's resolution to end the season.

The SPFL's reconstruction proposal - which would have reversed the demotions of Thistle, Hearts and Stranraer - failed after only 16 of the 42 clubs backed it, with Dunfermline Athletic confirming they were one of those who supported the plans.

All four senior divisions were curtailed because of coronavirus.

Now this won't affect the EPL or the Championship, but it could potentially have ramifications for the lower leagues in England.

[Chester Perry]

The push to get fans back is really driving forward - from the Telegraph

Government, FA and Uefa forecasts suggest fans could return to ­stadiums by end of summer
Culture Secretary: 'I really hope that by the return of the new season we may be in a ­position whereby some fans could return to stadiums'
By Tom Morgan, Sports News Correspondent 17 June 2020 • 10:30pm

Fans may be returning to stadiums at home and abroad by the end of the summer, according to optimistic forecasts from the Football Association, Uefa and the Government.

After Aleksander Ceferin, president of Uefa, said that supporters may yet get the green light to travel to the final stages of this season’s Champions League in August, the Government and FA confirmed they were in talks about having crowds back after the domestic new season starts in September. “I would really hope that by the return of the new season we might be in a position whereby some fans could return to stadiums,” said Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, on Wednesday night.

In a separate press conference, Mark Bullingham, chief executive at the FA, added that the nation was now in a “very different situation” with the virus as he confirmed discussions were taking place with ministers over the return of fans.

“We hope at some point we can start having crowds back,” he added. “We know they are the lifeblood of football and we want to get them back. Even a few weeks ago we were not expecting that for a very long time, but now we are starting to have the conversations. I can’t give you any timescales or whether it will be a restricted capacity or anything like that. But I can tell you that we are starting to have the conversations with Government and other bodies.”

England’s Uefa Nations League fixtures in Iceland and Denmark are now certain to take place in the first week of September, shortly before the new Premier League campaign begins.

Bullingham confirmed Wembley could eventually be considered as a trial stadium for matches returning with small groups of fans or with no away support. “When people looked at neutral venues there were a lot of things about Wembley that were attractive, which could also make it attractive for a trial,” he said. “But we’re a bit away from that, we’ve only just started having the conversations as to what the stage five protocols will look like.”

Trials on digital passports to allow fans back into stadiums are also set to begin at training sessions for Premier League clubs, and Bullingham said it may use the technology if the Government decides testing is integral to getting the stadiums opened back up.

“It really depends on the Government’s point of view on that,” he said. “If they want mass testing those sort of schemes kick in. It’s not necessarily the way they’re leaning.”

The FA is looking at “loads” of options for fans returning in as safe a way as possible. “We’re even getting people to map out what traffic flows look like in stadia, explore what it could look like with one-metre, two-metre social distancing and so on,” Bullingham added.

The resumption of football is a major relief for the FA, which stands to lose “anywhere between £100 million and £300 million”. Bullingham said the figures were “massively significant for us, and we’ve taken out extra borrowing so we can spread that loss over four years”.

He also said that he had “spent a lot of time reflecting on ourselves and doing a lot of listening” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests and criticism levelled at the sport over a lack of black leaders in the dugout and boardroom. He sees no need for the FA to rewrite its rules on players making political statements, however.