Chairman acts to cut costs.... | Page 4 | Vital Football

Chairman acts to cut costs....

What about Liverpool switching to Nike from New Balance?
If the contract with New Balance says that agreement ends on the final day of the 2019-20 season, then the agreement may be terminated earlier than expected.
This could cost New Balance financially, for instance in lost marketing opportunities or holding excess stock. Alternatively it could benefit Liverpool and Nike who may be able to bring forward the switch.
Generally in circumstances such as this, one party will try and use the situation to get the edge over a competitor in a business transaction.
What about promotion? What legal basis would clubs have for damages if they are denied it?
The EFL is a company called The Football League Limited and each club is a shareholder. It's a hard argument to run, but if they decided to act in accordance with the Premier League and cancel the season, Leeds and West Brom could argue the EFL's board acted with unfair prejudice against a minority shareholder.
For example what if the decision was solely made to retain Leeds as an EFL club as they have global support and offer a better sell to broadcasters? A decision of this kind would completely prejudice Leeds and other clubs seeking promotion, it would also not be in keeping with the ethos of the EFL articles.
Damages would be fairly easy to quantify. It'd be a hard case to win but you might not bring it on your own. You'd bring it with every promotion-chasing side in the divisions.
Leeds and West Brom would get the most in damages but even lower down it's worth it. Leeds and West Brom's potential legal action is one of the reasons the EFL would be so keen to finish the season.
Imagine if the Football League ended the season, Leeds and West Brom lost revenue, were denied promotion, it went to a tribunal and they won with damages of £200million – it would bankrupt the Football League.


It would be a tough case to argue but promotion-chasing sides could sue for huge damages
What would happen with broadcasters?
It depends what the contracts say. They might have force majeure clause in it. Also, Sky have given everybody the option to suspend Sky Sports. It's good PR. But if I were the Premier League and EFL, I'd argue that they get loads of content around live action. People watch Premier League Years and season reviews. Therefore Sky would have failed to mitigate their losses.
They've not lost that much but this PR act has encouraged people to add to Sky's financial losses. That is an argument the Premier League and EFL could raise.
Also – when football comes back, you still want to have the rights. If you void the original agreement with the season cancelled, how willing will the Premier League and EFL be to go back to Sky again? Amazon, Netflix and YouTube are breathing down their neck.
In a time like this, a recession, it might even be in the Premier League's interest if the contract was terminated.
Amazon and Netflix have an unlimited pool of money – people are still buying things from Amazon now while they're in lockdown. They could even use the situation to lobby the FA to get rid of the 3pm blackout rule, which would increase the value of the deals.

There could be issues if Sky Sports and BT Sport ask for their money back over the TV deal
And say the FA Cup – they've already dished out prize money for that…
Clubs have definitely spent that already, especially further down the pyramid. There's also broadcasting money. They wouldn't be able to afford to pay that back.
What about European football?
If they hand it to the top four, the team in fifth would argue – it is a problem. If they go for the same four teams as last year for the Champions League – again it would be seen as unfair.
There's a number of issues, including transfer agreements. There are deals where the price can be decided by qualifying for Europe. If UEFA void their competitions and you are given a place, have you qualified or has it just been handed over? Does that trigger the payout?
There are so many disputes.
 
What I would say about what Sadiq and Jordan said is that they haven't really looked at it through the lens of a footballer. If I'm Toby Alderweireld, I'm way more motivated to help the staff at the hospital where my wife recently gave birth. People are dying right now and most high profile footballers will be finding ways of giving back. I might have a motive to help the staff at the football club, but my chairman has already cut their salaries by 20%. I'm not feeling the fat cat conversations between the TV companies, The Premier League and the Chairman is my problem. They caused it, they should fix it. I have a contract.

Now back to the football chairmen. What have they done to create a culture of togetherness in the clubs they run over these last few years? Toby may look across at Radrizzani at Leeds and see how his manager and players are pulling together for the club and their extended staff. They've bought into the clubs vision and I'm guessing the top man is likeable. It's also of course based on a promise of receiving their salaries in the future. Does Levy have that same relationship with his playing staff that he can appeal to their better nature? Perhaps, but I'm guessing probably not.

Quite frankly, if I'm Toby I have very little motivation to help Levy's P&L and Balance sheet by taking a pay-cut. I have a contract and I would rather keep the money in my own pocket and do great things for my family and friends in the same way Levy is looking after his. As long as I'm doing my bit for the community in this pandemic, I'll be sleeping at night despite what the media says.
 
muttley said:
What I would say about what Sadiq and Jordan said is that they haven't really looked at it through the lens of a footballer. If I'm Toby Alderweireld, I'm way more motivated to help the staff at the hospital where my wife recently gave birth. People are dying right now and most high profile footballers will be finding ways of giving back. I might have a motive to help the staff at the football club, but my chairman has already cut their salaries by 20%. I'm not feeling the fat cat conversations between the TV companies, The Premier League and the Chairman is my problem. They caused it, they should fix it. I have a contract.

Now back to the football chairmen. What have they done to create a culture of togetherness in the clubs they run over these last few years? Toby may look across at Radrizzani at Leeds and see how his manager and players are pulling together for the club and their extended staff. They've bought into the clubs vision and I'm guessing the top man is likeable. It's also of course based on a promise of receiving their salaries in the future. Does Levy have that same relationship with his playing staff that he can appeal to their better nature? Perhaps, but I'm guessing probably not.

Quite frankly, if I'm Toby I have very little motivation to help Levy's P&L and Balance sheet by taking a pay-cut. I have a contract and I would rather keep the money in my own pocket and do great things for my family and friends in the same way Levy is looking after his. As long as I'm doing my bit for the community in this pandemic, I'll be sleeping at night despite what the media says.
Click to expand...

All I'd say is that your views correspond to just about every CEO/Chairman in the PL and for Levy's name, insert any others.

Players rarely (if ever) 'bond' with a Chairman or CEO, they bond with the manager and his vision; as you know, I'm a cynic and in my experience, a players 'love' for a club goes as far as his paycheck, everything else is noise and nonsense, but I understand why so many fans believe in it, or want to believe it.

Being a CEO/Chairman of any club now is going to be a lonely stressful job, and you have to carry the can if you don't get the club through this in reasonable shape; I am aware of one club who are now consulting with specialists in receivership, in case a deal with the players isn't forthcoming, who'd want to be the man that gets remembered as the man that put a PL club in receivership?
 
Spursex said:
All I'd say is that your views correspond to just about every CEO/Chairman in the PL and for Levy's name, insert any others.

Players rarely (if ever) 'bond' with a Chairman or CEO, they bond with the manager and his vision; as you know, I'm a cynic and in my experience, a players 'love' for a club goes as far as his paycheck, everything else is noise and nonsense, but I understand why so many fans believe in it, or want to believe it.

Being a CEO/Chairman of any club now is going to be a lonely stressful job, and you have to carry the can if you don't get the club through this in reasonable shape; I am aware of one club who are now consulting with specialists in receivership, in case a deal with the players isn't forthcoming, who'd want to be the man that gets remembered as the man that put a PL club in receivership?
Click to expand...

Now that "popularity contest" league table I'd like to see. I don't think Levy would fair very well against those lovely Thai's owners at Leicester. He might struggle up against the Wolves and Sheff Utd chairmen and definitely lose against good old John Henry. Then there's those Sheikh's bringing back to back titles.

The London derbies might be a relegation dog-fight of epic proportions. Some right horrible gits inside the M25, not forgetting Karen Brady.
 
I've just been informed that the PFA are not budging on taking wage cuts now.

Anyway, that's what I've been told, which if it's confirmed tomorrow will get players and their union absolutely despised and vilified.

Although I do know of a number of agents (as their incomes will be directly affected too) that they too think the clubs should pay, no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Spursex said:
I've just been informed that the PFA are not budging on taking wage cuts now.

Anyway, that's what I've been told, which if it's confirmed tomorrow will get players and their union absolutely despised and vilified.

Although I do know of a number of agents (as their incomes will be directly affected too) that they too think the clubs should pay, no matter what.
Click to expand...

I sort of don't blame the players. There are so many variables upstream from their own decision that it must be hard for them to make things black and white. They are being asked to commit to action whilst others are allowed to play the waiting game.
 
Spursex said:
If they did and did it without agreement, the club would be in breach of contract and the player could walk for free - so it's easy for him to say when he has nothing to lose.

'Moral obligation' means nothing in law, which is where, if they did, it would end up.

He is a mouthy **** and as I said, it's easy to piss into a camp when you're not inside it.

The only thing he's bang on about is his big mouth and his ego. It's why he went bust.
Click to expand...

Other teams are doing it so there is clearly a way.

He is a mouthy fecker but is switched on.
 
muttley said:
What I would say about what Sadiq and Jordan said is that they haven't really looked at it through the lens of a footballer. If I'm Toby Alderweireld, I'm way more motivated to help the staff at the hospital where my wife recently gave birth. People are dying right now and most high profile footballers will be finding ways of giving back. I might have a motive to help the staff at the football club, but my chairman has already cut their salaries by 20%. I'm not feeling the fat cat conversations between the TV companies, The Premier League and the Chairman is my problem. They caused it, they should fix it. I have a contract.

Now back to the football chairmen. What have they done to create a culture of togetherness in the clubs they run over these last few years? Toby may look across at Radrizzani at Leeds and see how his manager and players are pulling together for the club and their extended staff. They've bought into the clubs vision and I'm guessing the top man is likeable. It's also of course based on a promise of receiving their salaries in the future. Does Levy have that same relationship with his playing staff that he can appeal to their better nature? Perhaps, but I'm guessing probably not.

Quite frankly, if I'm Toby I have very little motivation to help Levy's P&L and Balance sheet by taking a pay-cut. I have a contract and I would rather keep the money in my own pocket and do great things for my family and friends in the same way Levy is looking after his. As long as I'm doing my bit for the community in this pandemic, I'll be sleeping at night despite what the media says.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. At least you would be doing your bit and helping others.

There is so much money in football at the top end I can't stand the way Levy has handled this. It's disgusting.

I'll never go to another game with him in charge. Not a chance.
 
It would be really interesting to know what cashflow would be created if the Spurs players walked away from their bonuses in 2020. We know they are on the highest bonus to base ratio in the Prem so surely that would create a number north of 20% of the overall 1st team salary bucket (guess).
 
Real Deal said:
That's a fair point. At least you would be doing your bit and helping others.

There is so much money in football at the top end I can't stand the way Levy has handled this. It's disgusting.

I'll never go to another game with him in charge. Not a chance.
Click to expand...

The 80% 'ters he's announced because of their lower wage base, will get every penny they normally would; those not Furloughed (essential workers) will get their full salary., so I don't understand the moral outrage and indignation being amplified over absolutely nothing at all. You won't find a single Spurs employee moaning about it.

He has effectively stopped the club paying people who aren't doing anything - catering, stewards etc etc

We have NO income and a shed load of fixed overheads.

So ALL he is 'guilty' of is using the government's money and again given how much the club will have and have had paid the revenue over the years, I think he's done exactly the right moral thing to do.

As for money at the 'top end' and see how much cash was on our balance sheet end of last year; it will be gone and we'll have no reserves by my calculation within 5 - 6 months (given our fixed overheads); bear in mind we have NO income. And the income we are relying on will either be greatly reduced as the PL cannot fulfill it's obligations or it may even not be paid at all if the season has to be curtailed or abandoned. That is armageddon for the business.

He is protecting the business, pure and simple, which is exactly what every other businessman I know is also doing with there's. There will be many clubs - and some will surprise you - that if the worst-case scenario happens, they will go bust - they've all been living on credit for far too long.

As for the players, who should be stepping up as they have in Spain and German, you can thank the power of the PFA for being prepared to do sweet dick all.

Clubs cannot enforce anything on them, if they do - they can walk for free. All the pontificating from that arsole on the radio means sweet fcuk all in the real world, and it's no wonder to me he went bust.
 
muttley said:
It would be really interesting to know what cashflow would be created if the Spurs players walked away from their bonuses in 2020. We know they are on the highest bonus to base ratio in the Prem so surely that would create a number north of 20% of the overall 1st team salary bucket (guess).
Click to expand...

If you look at our wage bill of around 200 mill, 20% overall would be 40 mill - if they were forced to do that for 6 months, it would generate around 20 mill additional cash that wouldn't have to be spent, but again against a probable loss in this financial year of #79-80 mill it would help but not as much as needed. personally, I think they should all be doing a Barca size cut of around 60-70%.
 
Spursex said:
If you look at our wage bill of around 200 mill, 20% overall would be 40 mill - if they were forced to do that for 6 months, it would generate around 20 mill additional cash that wouldn't have to be spent, but again against a probable loss in this financial year of #79-80 mill it would help but not as much as needed. personally, I think they should all be doing a Barca size cut of around 60-70%.
Click to expand...

Even if they did for 60-70%, it should be positioned as a "monthly" gesture to THFC. There should be a monthly waiver drafted and signed between club and player on a rolling 4 week basis as an interim step.

In my mind, this cannot become more permanent until the upstream decisions between government, FA, Premier League, TV Companies etc play out.

The football industry needs to continue to focus on the cause, not the effect.
 
muttley said:
Even if they did for 60-70%, it should be positioned as a "monthly" gesture to THFC. There should be a monthly waiver drafted and signed between club and player on a rolling 4 week basis as an interim step.

In my mind, this cannot become more permanent until the upstream decisions between government, FA, Premier League, TV Companies etc play out.

The football industry needs to continue to focus on the cause, not the effect.
Click to expand...

It certainly wouldn't be a permanent agreement and would of course and obviously have to be continuously reviewed - just as Barca's is.
 
We will have to agree to disagree EX. I'm not buying it as other teams are doing things on their own terms. There are clearly loop holes.

I have no problems with small business doing it, that's what the scheme is there for. To help those that need it. We do not need it. It's down to greed pure and simple.

Quite frankly I don't give a toss how much tax the club has paid over the years. They have stolen money long enough just like every other Premier League team has.

Bournemouth seem to be the next team in line to do the moral thing and take pay cuts.
 
As is every other business in the land, globally for that matter Spurs are using government money. This is what it is going to take in order for us to come out of this situation anywhere remotely close to the way we went into it.

It would be a good idea to balance any comments about 460 million in turnover with the expected turnover for this fiscal year. Spurs will be missing game day revenue and the lost TV revenue. Those are big numbers as well.

Also, you cannot generate 460 million in turnover without incurring significant expenses including FIXED expenses. So when you reduce the 460 million by those expenses (which at this point include UNreduced player salaries) you will also have to subtract the lost game day revenue and the lost TV rights revenue.

Not such a pretty picture. And one that justifies using every means necessary to ensure the business and all the jobs it creates within itself and associated businesses either are maintained or return when this is over.
 
Real Deal said:
We will have to agree to disagree EX. I'm not buying it as other teams are doing things on their own terms. There are clearly loop holes.

I have no problems with small business doing it, that's what the scheme is there for. To help those that need it. We do not need it. It's down to greed pure and simple.

Quite frankly I don't give a toss how much tax the club has paid over the years. They have stolen money long enough just like every other Premier League team has.

Bournemouth seem to be the next team in line to do the moral thing and take pay cuts.
Click to expand...

What team players in the PL? what loopholes?

It's got absolutely nothing to do with greed whatsoever.

Club never stole anything from anyone unless everyone lost their freewill., did you?!

Bournmouth's coaches have taken voluntary cuts; I'd like to see the Spurs coaches do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.