Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
-
- Posts: 30275
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 10917 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: clue is in the title
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
this has been in the air for a few days now - no pay no play - big issue for clubs though as it leaves a large hole in budgetsVegas Claret wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:32 pmhttps://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... s-22623287
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
from the Telegraph
Premier League terminates China broadcast deal which could have huge impact on clubs' finances
BEN RUMSBY SEPTEMBER 03, 2020
Premier League clubs have been left with a half-a-billion pound black hole after terminating their broadcast contract in China, in a move that should cost them at least £160 million.
The television deal with Chinese broadcaster PPTV has been cancelled due to an unpaid fee of the latter amount during the coronavirus crisis.
A Premier League statement read: “The Premier League confirms that it has today terminated its agreements for Premier League coverage in China with its licensee in that territory.
“The Premier League will not be commenting further on the matter at this stage.”
In November 2016, the Premier League signed its biggest TV deal outside the UK when Suning Holdings paid £564m to broadcast matches for three years, from 2019-2022, via its digital channel PPTV.
The loss of income for the Premier League will be significant and could have a major impact on clubs’ finances.
Suning’s failure to pay coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, which forced a worldwide sporting shutdown.
Premier League clubs considered negotiating a new payment plan with Suning or terminating the deal last month and voted for the latter at Thursday’s shareholders’ meeting.
As well as the potential loss of £160m, clubs could forfeit even more income if a replacement broadcaster cannot be found or is not prepared to match the previous deal.
Teams’ finances have already been decimated by the pandemic, including via rebates paid to broadcast partners for the three-month suspension of football and its resumption behind closed doors.
China’s PPLive Sports cited Covid as a factor in the termination of the deal with the Premier League.
It said: “After rounds of meetings, PPLive Sports and Premier League have a disagreement on the price of broadcasting rights. We regret we couldn’t have an agreement with Premier League.”
Premier League terminates China broadcast deal which could have huge impact on clubs' finances
BEN RUMSBY SEPTEMBER 03, 2020
Premier League clubs have been left with a half-a-billion pound black hole after terminating their broadcast contract in China, in a move that should cost them at least £160 million.
The television deal with Chinese broadcaster PPTV has been cancelled due to an unpaid fee of the latter amount during the coronavirus crisis.
A Premier League statement read: “The Premier League confirms that it has today terminated its agreements for Premier League coverage in China with its licensee in that territory.
“The Premier League will not be commenting further on the matter at this stage.”
In November 2016, the Premier League signed its biggest TV deal outside the UK when Suning Holdings paid £564m to broadcast matches for three years, from 2019-2022, via its digital channel PPTV.
The loss of income for the Premier League will be significant and could have a major impact on clubs’ finances.
Suning’s failure to pay coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, which forced a worldwide sporting shutdown.
Premier League clubs considered negotiating a new payment plan with Suning or terminating the deal last month and voted for the latter at Thursday’s shareholders’ meeting.
As well as the potential loss of £160m, clubs could forfeit even more income if a replacement broadcaster cannot be found or is not prepared to match the previous deal.
Teams’ finances have already been decimated by the pandemic, including via rebates paid to broadcast partners for the three-month suspension of football and its resumption behind closed doors.
China’s PPLive Sports cited Covid as a factor in the termination of the deal with the Premier League.
It said: “After rounds of meetings, PPLive Sports and Premier League have a disagreement on the price of broadcasting rights. We regret we couldn’t have an agreement with Premier League.”
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
I will say there is a significant element of Geopolitics at play here too on the Chinese side - posted a bit about it on the MMT thread in the last couple of days
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
I am very surprised that no one else has posted on this thread - this news is truly shocking for a club like ours - the only one that has not had to dip into the owners pockets or has gone to a lender in the English game (possibly the world) and will come out weaker for it - the Premier League was already down £340m last season as a result of rebates, add the £160m from PPTV, takes it to £500m - average of £25m per club. None of which is reportedly being deducted from last seasons distributions - rather it is being kicked down the road (growing all the time).
This season all the overseas broadcasters are looking for rebates for games without full attendances, the Premier League are already £180m down because of PPTV contract termination, and no apparent suitor in sight for those rights and certainly not at that price. At home fans are demanding games be televised even with partial attendance, broadcasters are not keen on paying for them and clubs are afraid that future rights values will be diluted as a result and also wary of season ticket sales while all games are televised - There is now a value attached to sell-out crowds from the broadcasters.
The league as a whole still needs to absorb the hundreds of millions it is losing in matchday sales too
The other thing not being talked about yet is, what are the value of sponsorship contracts now that the world's most populous country is not watching the Premier League? - particularly those, like LoveBet, which were directly targeting China.
On top of this we are still hearing demands that he Premier League should fund a £250m rescue package for the EFL.
Still we have fans demanding that our club spend close to record fees on players unproven in the Premier League .
This season all the overseas broadcasters are looking for rebates for games without full attendances, the Premier League are already £180m down because of PPTV contract termination, and no apparent suitor in sight for those rights and certainly not at that price. At home fans are demanding games be televised even with partial attendance, broadcasters are not keen on paying for them and clubs are afraid that future rights values will be diluted as a result and also wary of season ticket sales while all games are televised - There is now a value attached to sell-out crowds from the broadcasters.
The league as a whole still needs to absorb the hundreds of millions it is losing in matchday sales too
The other thing not being talked about yet is, what are the value of sponsorship contracts now that the world's most populous country is not watching the Premier League? - particularly those, like LoveBet, which were directly targeting China.
On top of this we are still hearing demands that he Premier League should fund a £250m rescue package for the EFL.
Still we have fans demanding that our club spend close to record fees on players unproven in the Premier League .
Last edited by Chester Perry on Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2590 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
A lot to play out but I can only see this benefitting the big clubs with the super rich owners. They might even welcome it. Can't have upstarts like Burnley or Sheff Utd taking huge amounts of TV cash and sponsorship and actually competing. Plus we're driving up their wage bills, with our £70-80m budget. You don't need to pay squad players daft money if you know the likes of us can't come close to matching it again.
If the TV money dries up, the next round of contract negotiations at any club without a sugar daddy owner will be eye opening.
If the TV money dries up, the next round of contract negotiations at any club without a sugar daddy owner will be eye opening.
-
- Posts: 3104
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:24 am
- Been Liked: 942 times
- Has Liked: 410 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Maybe an opportunity for sky/bt/amazon to step in and show all the live games and for a review of the 3pm and think about commercial opportunity this brings.
The world is a much different place now than it was
The world is a much different place now than it was
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
all this was being saved by the Premier league to maintain overall rights values in future cycles - domestic rights values per match have dropped 40% in the last 2 cycles - releasing all these games at once rather than the steady trickle plan the Premier League had adopted will see that grow with little or no overall gain in income when other income streams are being severely challenged - that is no way to stabilise/grow a business in the medium termclarethomer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:31 pmMaybe an opportunity for sky/bt/amazon to step in and show all the live games and for a review of the 3pm and think about commercial opportunity this brings.
The world is a much different place now than it was
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Nothing surer.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:41 pmI will say there is a significant element of Geopolitics at play here too on the Chinese side - posted a bit about it on the MMT thread in the last couple of days
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Hi Chester, you paint a grim financial picture..... except.....Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:18 pmI am very surprised that no one else has posted on this thread - this news is truly shocking for a club like ours - the only one that has not had to dip into the owners pockets or has gone to a lender in the English game (possibly the world) and will come out weaker for it - the Premier League was already down £340m last season as a result of rebates, add the £160m from PPTV, takes it to £500m - average of £25m per club. None of which is reportedly being deducted from last seasons distributions - rather it is being kicked down the road (growing all the time).
This season all the overseas broadcasters are looking for rebates for games without full attendances, the Premier League are already £180m down because of PPTV contract termination, and no apparent suitor in sight for those rights and certainly not at that price. At home fans are demanding games be televised even with partial attendance, broadcasters are not keen on paying for them and clubs are afraid that future rights values will be diluted as a result and also wary of season ticket sales while all games are televised - There is now a value attached to sell-out crowds from the broadcasters.
The league as a whole still needs to absorb the hundreds of millions it is losing in matchday sales too
The other thing not being talked about yet is, what are the value of sponsorship contracts now that the world's most populous country is not watching the Premier League? - particularly those, like LoveBet, which were directly targeting China.
On top of this we are still hearing demands that he Premier League should fund a £250m rescue package for the EFL.
Still we have fans demanding that our club spend close to record fees on players unproven in the Premier League .
So, if tv money is down, where is it down to? How does it compare with tv money from 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? Most of....I'll correct myself, all of the tv money goes on player wages (and their agents). Does it really matter if the clubs can't afford £100k per week contracts (and Burnley, on average, 40% of that)? Will all these "super-star" footballers stop playing and earn their wealth elsewhere? Or, will the football world adjust to their new "reduced" circumstances?
I'd hope that the "froth" will come off the top of the market. The financial deals received by Messi and Bale (and many others) are ridiculous. All these ridiculous deals impact on the rest of the player costs.
It will be great when the Premier League returns to a stable and sustainable future and when the financial excess comes to an end.
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Paul I think the issue is that clubs have already committed to transfers (scheduled payments) and wages in anticipation of future earnings based on those tv contracts usually in 4 or 5 year deals (the Premier League norm). Yes clubs can adapt but they are being hit on all revenue streams currently and those player contracts still have around 3 years to run on averagePaul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:36 pmHi Chester, you paint a grim financial picture..... except.....
So, if tv money is down, where is it down to? How does it compare with tv money from 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? Most of....I'll correct myself, all of the tv money goes on player wages (and their agents). Does it really matter if the clubs can't afford £100k per week contracts (and Burnley, on average, 40% of that)? Will all these "super-star" footballers stop playing and earn their wealth elsewhere? Or, will the football world adjust to their new "reduced" circumstances?
I'd hope that the "froth" will come off the top of the market. The financial deals received by Messi and Bale (and many others) are ridiculous. All these ridiculous deals impact on the rest of the player costs.
It will be great when the Premier League returns to a stable and sustainable future and when the financial excess comes to an end.
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Good. No more need for VAR for in-play markets, no more LOVE BET or FUN 88.
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Jeremy Bentham makes sense (again or is that "as usual")
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
It's got to come to a point that the players have to take some kind of global pay cut to facilitate all this.
In effect they are still being paid for offering a service for a product that hardly anyone is watching.
I know there are contracts and legal issues etc, but something has to be done surely?
In effect they are still being paid for offering a service for a product that hardly anyone is watching.
I know there are contracts and legal issues etc, but something has to be done surely?
-
- Posts: 6889
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1468 times
- Has Liked: 1839 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
We need to negotiate a situation where our games are available on I player as long as crowds are reduced.
We are forced to listen an watch Sky version of football which has no place for sides outside the top 6
The coverage is aimed at foreign audiences and we need a domestic deal for us
We are forced to listen an watch Sky version of football which has no place for sides outside the top 6
The coverage is aimed at foreign audiences and we need a domestic deal for us
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
The other issue, from a Burnley viewpoint, is that this is a far bigger proportion of our revenue than virtually every other club in the Premier League. With Bournemouth gone I can't imagine there are many, if any, other clubs for whom TV money is such a high proportion of their total revenue.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:36 pmHi Chester, you paint a grim financial picture..... except.....
So, if tv money is down, where is it down to? How does it compare with tv money from 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? Most of....I'll correct myself, all of the tv money goes on player wages (and their agents). Does it really matter if the clubs can't afford £100k per week contracts (and Burnley, on average, 40% of that)? Will all these "super-star" footballers stop playing and earn their wealth elsewhere? Or, will the football world adjust to their new "reduced" circumstances?
I'd hope that the "froth" will come off the top of the market. The financial deals received by Messi and Bale (and many others) are ridiculous. All these ridiculous deals impact on the rest of the player costs.
It will be great when the Premier League returns to a stable and sustainable future and when the financial excess comes to an end.
It's about a third of Man Utd's revenue, maybe two thirds for West Ham, Everton, etc but about 85-90% for us.
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
That will be us and West Brom fighting for that title this season - with West Brom edging us depending on how high/low each fares in final league position. Fulham not to far way but better commercial income due to London and billionaire owner contactsaggi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:34 pmThe other issue, from a Burnley viewpoint, is that this is a far bigger proportion of our revenue than virtually every other club in the Premier League. With Bournemouth gone I can't imagine there are many, if any, other clubs for whom TV money is such a high proportion of their total revenue.
It's about a third of Man Utd's revenue, maybe two thirds for West Ham, Everton, etc but about 85-90% for us.
Leeds were earning more than twice our commercial revenues in 2018/19 and I expect them to triple (more likely quadruple) us, in that area, at least this season
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
I agree that many clubs assume they will continue to receive Premier League revenues and that those revenues will continue to grow and many player contracts are signed on the basis that (a) the money will be there to meet the contract obligations and (b) if the worst happens and they are relegated, then they can sell a couple of players to "make ends meet."Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:47 pmPaul I think the issue is that clubs have already committed to transfers (scheduled payments) and wages in anticipation of future earnings based on those tv contracts usually in 4 or 5 year deals (the Premier League norm). Yes clubs can adapt but they are being hit on all revenue streams currently and those player contracts still have around 3 years to run on average
It's not yet 20 years since ITV Digital defaulted on their tv contract. Burnley let go 14 players at the end of that season, every contract that could be terminated was terminated. Other clubs were in the same situation.
I wonder how much "due diligence" the Premier League put into assuring themselves that they award contract rights to broadcasters who can and will honour their tv contracts? It hasn't worked out too well with the Chinese outfit.
Do you see mention of credit risk in all the football finance commentaries that you research?
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
It is an interesting point and one that I have raised about the new deal in France - which has itv digital screaming at you - no financial guarantee's and a start-up with no existing infrastructure that requires 3.5million subscribers within a year to make it work - this in a country where football is not the number 1 sport.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:32 pmI agree that many clubs assume they will continue to receive Premier League revenues and that those revenues will continue to grow and many player contracts are signed on the basis that (a) the money will be there to meet the contract obligations and (b) if the worst happens and they are relegated, then they can sell a couple of players to "make ends meet."
It's not yet 20 years since ITV Digital defaulted on their tv contract. Burnley let go 14 players at the end of that season, every contract that could be terminated was terminated. Other clubs were in the same situation.
I wonder how much "due diligence" the Premier League put into assuring themselves that they award contract rights to broadcasters who can and will honour their tv contracts? It hasn't worked out too well with the Chinese outfit.
Do you see mention of credit risk in all the football finance commentaries that you research?
I believe the Premier League do look for guarantees (though I have no evidence) - and traditionally they build relationships with media organisations and work over many cycles developing partnerships (something I have posted about a number of times over the summer).
PPTV (Sunning) was a new partner, they won the rights with a bid that was 12 times the value of the previous deal (which is just nuts) - Sunning are a huge and stable organisation, they can easily afford it if they wanted too (even if it would result in operational loss - which is factor in part of this mess). The bid was made when the Chinese government wanted corporations to invest in football - the nuance of that government message has changed, add in the geo-political climate (the Premier League is used by UK gov as a political tool globally) and the fact that the PPTV deal is losing money locally only serves to make the Chinese government perceive the deal as excessive and bad form. To add to the problem, the number of people watching illegal streams at least matches legitimate subscribers. With this background Sunning went back to the Premier League to renegotiate the deal downwards in value and outwards in time, while at the same time with-holding payment.
From a Premier League perspective this could open all sorts of other problems with other rights holders (all are looking for rebates this season as well) and was not the approach they would expect to be taken by a partner, so they were left with little option, which Sunning knew and essentially got what it wanted, including the prospect of never having to pay the outstanding £160m as no Chinese law firm will prosecute what is essentially a government directive. It is telling that the company thought to be in prime position for taking over the rights is part owned by the Chinese government.
What I have learned this year is that the Premier League's approach to it's media partners is one more akin to diplomacy than business (though that inevitably follows) and their overseas relationships tend to work like an extension of the Foreign office
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
-
- Posts: 9845
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2344 times
- Has Liked: 3164 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Thanks, Chester. There's a lot of new info for me in your post. I can agree that it would be very surprising if a Chinese court would enforce the Premier League's right to collect the outstanding £160 million. I hope Premier League didn't have too big a celebration when they awarded the rights to Sunning at 12 times the previous tv deal. The outcome proves that it wasn't the "real deal." There would have been two ways to approach this contract, either treat the money as provisional and caution all the Premier League shareholders (the 20 clubs for each respective season) that they shouldn't count on receiving the money or they could require Sunning (or any other successful bidder) to provide a bank guarantee of full payment from an international bank (i.e. non-Chinese).Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:07 pmIt is an interesting point and one that I have raised about the new deal in France - which has itv digital screaming at you - no financial guarantee's and a start-up with no existing infrastructure that requires 3.5million subscribers within a year to make it work - this in a country where football is not the number 1 sport.
I believe the Premier League do look for guarantees (though I have no evidence) - and traditionally they build relationships with media organisations and work over many cycles developing partnerships (something I have posted about a number of times over the summer).
PPTV (Sunning) was a new partner, they won the rights with a bid that was 12 times the value of the previous deal (which is just nuts) - Sunning are a huge and stable organisation, they can easily afford it if they wanted too (even if it would result in operational loss - which is factor in part of this mess). The bid was made when the Chinese government wanted corporations to invest in football - the nuance of that government message has changed, add in the geo-political climate (the Premier League is used by UK gov as a political tool globally) and the fact that the PPTV deal is losing money locally only serves to make the Chinese government perceive the deal as excessive and bad form. To add to the problem, the number of people watching illegal streams at least matches legitimate subscribers. With this background Sunning went back to the Premier League to renegotiate the deal downwards in value and outwards in time, while at the same time with-holding payment.
From a Premier League perspective this could open all sorts of other problems with other rights holders (all are looking for rebates this season as well) and was not the approach they would expect to be taken by a partner, so they were left with little option, which Sunning knew and essentially got what it wanted, including the prospect of never having to pay the outstanding £160m as no Chinese law firm will prosecute what is essentially a government directive. It is telling that the company thought to be in prime position for taking over the rights is part owned by the Chinese government.
What I have learned this year is that the Premier League's approach to it's media partners is one more akin to diplomacy than business (though that inevitably follows) and their overseas relationships tend to work like an extension of the Foreign office
-
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 pm
- Been Liked: 891 times
- Has Liked: 1100 times
- Location: Solihull Geriatric Centre
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Wasn't this part of the TV monies that aren't in the equal shares distribution that was negotiated by the 'big 6' a couple of seasons ago?aggi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:34 pmThe other issue, from a Burnley viewpoint, is that this is a far bigger proportion of our revenue than virtually every other club in the Premier League. With Bournemouth gone I can't imagine there are many, if any, other clubs for whom TV money is such a high proportion of their total revenue.
It's about a third of Man Utd's revenue, maybe two thirds for West Ham, Everton, etc but about 85-90% for us.
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
If you look at what is happening in sport right now around the world there are a lot of high profile/value deals (mainly sponsorship) with Chinese companies that have been terminated early in the last month - all in countries that have taken positions that the Chinese government do not likePaul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:33 pmThanks, Chester. There's a lot of new info for me in your post. I can agree that it would be very surprising if a Chinese court would enforce the Premier League's right to collect the outstanding £160 million. I hope Premier League didn't have too big a celebration when they awarded the rights to Sunning at 12 times the previous tv deal. The outcome proves that it wasn't the "real deal." There would have been two ways to approach this contract, either treat the money as provisional and caution all the Premier League shareholders (the 20 clubs for each respective season) that they shouldn't count on receiving the money or they could require Sunning (or any other successful bidder) to provide a bank guarantee of full payment from an international bank (i.e. non-Chinese).
-
- Posts: 3233
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:36 am
- Been Liked: 1768 times
- Has Liked: 41 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
So there is effectively £8m per club, per season lost.
Sounds to me like the rights to the biggest audience in the world we’re sold to cheap in any event.
Sounds to me like the rights to the biggest audience in the world we’re sold to cheap in any event.
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Everything earned up to £863,692,160 each season in the overseas rights is distributed equally to all Premier clubs (up to £43,184,608 for each club) - all earnings over that are distributed as a merit payments - rebates and the PPTV missing monies leave little for merit payments for the remaining seasons in this cycle, though that was reportedly not to be the case for last season.
-
- Posts: 13225
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
Thing is though Chester, our “prudence” in the transfer market over the last two seasons, plus offloading Gibson, should mean we don’t have much o/s financial commitment? We should be in a good position in that regard, albeit I accept that the uncertainty may impact our ability to make big signings this summer and commit to future payments.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:47 pmPaul I think the issue is that clubs have already committed to transfers (scheduled payments) and wages in anticipation of future earnings based on those tv contracts usually in 4 or 5 year deals (the Premier League norm). Yes clubs can adapt but they are being hit on all revenue streams currently and those player contracts still have around 3 years to run on average
We are also “lucky”, from this angle at least, that we tend to only sign players on short term deals, and have 7 ooc next year so it will be easier to adapt to any major shortfall. Other clubs tend to offer big wages on long term deals and will struggle more to adapt to any market adjustments.
Also agree with aggi that it has to be taken in the context of what income we have received in the past. We are a PL club at an extremely difficult time, so are one of the “lucky 20”, really.
I still believe we will be in better financial health next year than those clubs that depend more on matchday and commercial revenues. The TV deal may reduce, but I would expect Matchday and Commercial revenues to reduce by much more. In the case of Matchday - up to, or more than, 75%? So it will disproportionately impact those clubs with larger stadia. Unsure on commercial revenues but I know many companies will be reigning in their discretionary spend on sponsorship, etc, potentially by percentages much greater than the reduction in TV income.
We are starting from a good position - debt free and cash in the bank. In a way, it supports the financially prudent approach adopted by Garlick and the Board.
-
- Posts: 19169
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3115 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Premier League terminate largest overseas TV deal
It is an interesting topic - I personally feel that the lucky ones are the newly promoted clubs who know no matter what that they have a significant revenue growth and therefore are able to grow wages and make signings (I expect Leeds to be in the top 8 revenue earners and possibly to have the largest commercial revenues outside the big six for example). It is more difficult for clubs like us, entering our 5th consecutive season, our commitments have already grown to meet revenues.NewClaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:19 amThing is though Chester, our “prudence” in the transfer market over the last two seasons, plus offloading Gibson, should mean we don’t have much o/s financial commitment? We should be in a good position in that regard, albeit I accept that the uncertainty may impact our ability to make big signings this summer and commit to future payments.
We are also “lucky”, from this angle at least, that we tend to only sign players on short term deals, and have 7 ooc next year so it will be easier to adapt to any major shortfall. Other clubs tend to offer big wages on long term deals and will struggle more to adapt to any market adjustments.
Also agree with aggi that it has to be taken in the context of what income we have received in the past. We are a PL club at an extremely difficult time, so are one of the “lucky 20”, really.
I still believe we will be in better financial health next year than those clubs that depend more on matchday and commercial revenues. The TV deal may reduce, but I would expect Matchday and Commercial revenues to reduce by much more. In the case of Matchday - up to, or more than, 75%? So it will disproportionately impact those clubs with larger stadia. Unsure on commercial revenues but I know many companies will be reigning in their discretionary spend on sponsorship, etc, potentially by percentages much greater than the reduction in TV income.
We are starting from a good position - debt free and cash in the bank. In a way, it supports the financially prudent approach adopted by Garlick and the Board.
By everyday benchmarks of the working man we are in rude financial health - money in the bank, no debt, very little in outstanding transfer payments (about £8m), revenues that exceed wage and cost commitments, on field performances/results the best in 5 decades. In business terms our revenue streams are all falling through no fault of our own and because we are prepared to cut our cloth accordingly it may compromise our ability to take advantage of the marketplace.
speaking of matchday income viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&start=5069