EFL Rescue Package Agreed | Page 5 | Vital Football

EFL Rescue Package Agreed

I'm a bit confused how they've come up with the £375k figure in the sense that £375k to some clubs is bigger (Accy) compared to others where it's a drop in the ocean (Sunderland).

Wouldn't they have been better off basing everything on gate receipts rather than an initial on-off figure?
 
Luke Imp said:
I'm a bit confused how they've come up with the £375k figure in the sense that £375k to some clubs is bigger (Accy) compared to others where it's a drop in the ocean (Sunderland).

Wouldn't they have been better off basing everything on gate receipts rather than an initial on-off figure?
Click to expand...

Probably akin to the which tier to put places into thinking. Too difficult to work out on a detailed place by place basis so lump it all in as one
 
sedgleyimp said:
Probably akin to the which tier to put places into thinking. Too difficult to work out on a detailed place by place basis so lump it all in as one
Click to expand...


More probably like the Prem league wanted to look good, but still want control on the 'Kiddie' football clubs spend there pocket by putting some ridiculous T&C's on the majority of the pocket money, when half them cannot look after there own affairs.

https://www.businessinsider.in/fina...-debt/slidelist/52551686.cms#slideid=52551703
 
2 sides to every story.

If based purely on attendances
Sunderland get 10 times more than Burton/Accrington or Fleetwood is that "fair"

On the other hand those clubs with small attendances aren't losing anything like the expected income that the bigger clubs are.

Perhaps get Mark Palios work out a "fair formula".
 
Chimpimp said:
2 sides to every story.

If based purely on attendances
Sunderland get 10 times more than Burton/Accrington or Fleetwood is that "fair"

On the other hand those clubs with small attendances aren't losing anything like the expected income that the bigger clubs are.

Perhaps get Mark Palios work out a "fair formula".
Click to expand...

On the face of it (and barring any hidden nasties), this seems a fair way to do thing. Half split equally, half split according to lost attendances income.
 
Luke Imp said:
I'm a bit confused how they've come up with the £375k figure in the sense that £375k to some clubs is bigger (Accy) compared to others where it's a drop in the ocean (Sunderland).

Wouldn't they have been better off basing everything on gate receipts rather than an initial on-off figure?
Click to expand...

I guess they just needed to get liquidity into clubs quickly before agreeing individual numbers which I guess takes time.
 
The split makes sense on one level in so much as all clubs have rates, utility bills, safety costs, ground maintenance etc. so money should be set aside for that on a fairly equitable footing.

The disparity in gate income will be much more marked which is why there is a second pot for that.
 
hulloutpost said:
The split makes sense on one level in so much as all clubs have rates, utility bills, safety costs, ground maintenance etc. so money should be set aside for that on a fairly equitable footing.

The disparity in gate income will be much more marked which is why there is a second pot for that.
Click to expand...
The point I was about to make. The initial lump sum is also fairer to the smaller but well run clubs like Accrington, who continually punch above their weight.
 
Impish said:
As Clive has already said, we will not be playing Russian Roulette by putting the clubs future at risk (pardon the Bournemouth pun).

I am sure we all back the board and totally trust them to give us the best opportunity for success. Whether that’s establishing ourselves at League One first or if we can dare to dream about possibly reaching the Championship. That would be a monumental task even for a season, just look at three promoted clubs from this league to see how hard it is to compete at the next level, Coventry 19th, Rotherham 20th and Wycombe 22nd.
Click to expand...

Ironically the three teams in the first three spots in the championship are the three that got relegated from the PL last season.
 
bbh 11 said:
Ironically the three teams in the first three spots in the championship are the three that got relegated from the PL last season.
Click to expand...

Yes mate, I think that says a lot about the money the Prem sides can invest with compared to the other leagues and also the parachute payments, if they are still in operation.
 
Red Wimp said:
So Stanley get 375k basic and nothing on top
Click to expand...
No I don't believe that is right, they got the 375k basic and then £223,013 for loses, so nearly 600k, I would expect us to get something around the 375k + 700k, so getting on for 1.1million though that is only my guestimate.
 
Max Arnold said:
No I don't believe that is right, they got the 375k basic and then £223,013 for loses, so nearly 600k, I would expect us to get something around the 375k + 700k, so getting on for 1.1million though that is only my guestimate.
Click to expand...
I read it as their share was calculated at 223k which being less than the 375k meant nothing extra - as in surplus = nil
 
Red Wimp said:
I read it as their share was calculated at 223k which being less than the 375k meant nothing extra - as in surplus = nil
Click to expand...
I don't think so, and though I don't like to quote the Sun or Alan Nixon "
Accrington Stanley revealed that they have lost almost £700,000, ranking them at number 43 out of 48 in the bottom two divisions.
The Lancashire club picked up £223,013 in the first hand-out and £375,000 in the one-off grant." Though he has got the order of the grants wrong, as the 375k was the first grant.
 
I read that as Accrington Stanley getting just the basic £ 375,000. The £M 30 share is made up of £M 15 fixed grant (For L1 clubs that makes £375,000) and £M 15 based on lost gate revenue. The losses for Accrington are quite low as they get low gates,and it has been calculated at just 0.7 % of the total lost revenue. This was calculated at £223,000 which was less than the Fixed total of £375,000 so no surplus is payable.

The average % per club would be 2.08 % (100/48).Obviously there will be large fluctuations around that mean. Lets assume,for sake of argument, that City get a 3% share of the lost revenue. This will mean we will get a grant of £ 900,000(£M 30 * 3%). Deduct the fixed £375,000 ,which would mean an additional £525,000 is payable.

Again this is my take on this matter and the 3% figure used is a guesstimate.
 
57harry said:
I read that as Accrington Stanley getting just the basic £ 375,000. The £M 30 share is made up of £M 15 fixed grant (For L1 clubs that makes £375,000) and £M 15 based on lost gate revenue. The losses for Accrington are quite low as they get low gates,and it has been calculated at just 0.7 % of the total lost revenue. This was calculated at £223,000 which was less than the Fixed total of £375,000 so no surplus is payable.

The average % per club would be 2.08 % (100/48).Obviously there will be large fluctuations around that mean. Lets assume,for sake of argument, that City get a 3% share of the lost revenue. This will mean we will get a grant of £ 900,000(£M 30 * 3%). Deduct the fixed £375,000 ,which would mean an additional £525,000 is payable.

Again this is my take on this matter and the 3% figure used is a guesstimate.
Click to expand...
Ah that makes more sense, I was wrong.
 
Not expecting any figures Clive, but did we get what we thought we should or does it look like all Club's have had to settle for the same % of lost revenue being recovered?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.