The Super League Discussion | Page 19 | Vital Football

The Super League Discussion

Depends if Apple, Amazon or another content monster show up to the auction.
Doesn't Disney also own a sports channel in the states?

whoever buys BT will have to have a content leveraging strategy that makes sense and I have to say having thought about it the only real runner might be Amazon?

Massive, huge Prime subscriber base, already has the infrastructure and could have a decent leverage aggregation strategy?

They'd certainly be able to sustain looses for a good few years without it even being noticed!
 
Doesn't Disney also own a sports channel in the states?

whoever buys BT will have to have a content leveraging strategy that makes sense and I have to say having thought about it the only real runner might be Amazon?

Massive, huge Prime subscriber base, already has the infrastructure and could have a decent leverage aggregation strategy?

They'd certainly be able to sustain looses for a good few years without it even being noticed!

Comcast has the rights tied up in the US I believe and I don't think the contracts run concurrently. Might be wrong there.

That poses a problem for the big players who want global distribution. I think I read that the PL wanted the contracts broken into regions for a number of reasons. Including increased revenues.
 
Many times I have discussed our finances and predicted that we'd be mad to pay back our emergency BOE loan when we didn't necessarily have to; the interest rate is so ridiculously low (0.5%) that any funding that replaced it would be considerably higher, perhaps as much as 6-8%..

So it has emerged that we have rolled over the taxpayer-backed loan worth £175million and did so just weeks before joining the now-defunct European Super League.

It re-emphasizes the financial pressure the club is under.

Last year Levy warned the World we'd lose around another £200 mill because of covid - I'd estimated that our total losses from Covid may well end up being in excess of £250 million. Covid couldn't have come at a worse time in our history, we'd just finished the stadium and had a long-term mortgage put in place and we're geared up for 20 or so non-football events that along with our normal business would have made revenues surge. Under the circumstances, furloughing our staff now looks positively prudent.

Given this background and with the benefit of hindsight, it's easy for me to see why Levy was forced to jump in rather than stand outside the planned Superleagues and it's committed £3.5 billion of funding of which we could have received around an immediate £350 million payment. A Payment like that would have mostly resolved all our short-term funding issues and allowed us to weather the storm.

Both clubs asked for help from the Government’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility. Both got the advance, Arsenal less than ours. However, our North London neighbors weren't hit as hard as us (their stadium has been bought and paid for and has little debt left to deal with from it)., and are believed to be ready to repay their BOE loan of £120 mill in full this month.

The CCFF is now closed for new applicants but Spurs were still able to roll their payment over.

The money was not and could not be used for new transfers (an explicit terms of the loan) but none the less we dug deep and spent around £70m on Jose's player demands since last summer. Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, Jose was also one of our worst decisions in a decade; his effect on some of our most expensive assets has largely been negative and apart from one player PJH, a financial disaster. And last but not least is how long we'll have to pay the serial master of the pay-off, let alone that it too runs into millions.

With an ultimate Billionaire (old Joe Lewis) stakeholder in our owners (ENIC) who seemingly has no interest in investing further in ENIC,(recent speculation is he's trying to sell his stake) the need to raise fresh capital from new investors/shareholders must now be a serious consideration or we risk another 5-10 years trying to repair the COVID damage and where we'll fall further behind as we'll be unable to compete for quality players in the transfer market or be able to pay the increasingly avaricious demands of the agents and the players they represent.

A senior partner in a global accountancy practice said to me recently that if it were any other business other than a PL club, he'd be seriously advising the directors (who become personally liable for trading whilst insolvent - although that might be weakened by the impact of covid for years to come) to consider seeking the court's protection and going into administration/insolvency in one form or another. Of Course, if we did that, we'd be in the championship the following season. But we'd bounce back with almost a clean balance sheet and could rebuild thereafter - but I can't see Levy throwing away a good chunk of his family's wealth by taking that sort of shortcut.

An extremely unlikely scenario perhaps but it won't be helped by the PL threatening to hit us with big financial penalties for our inclusion in the SL, UEFA, on the other hand, have been fairly lenient and only fined us around £7 mill and we are also paying part of £15 mill which will go to grassroots football, along with losing 5% of whatever European competition fees were due to us.

The owners of three of the clubs; United, Chelsea and Arsenal have confirmed that they would cover those penalties out of personal funds, as far as I know, no such undertaking has been issued by our clubs' owners - although that may yet happen or already be agreed., we've said and done nothing in public about this debacle and I expect that to continue until the dust has settled.

As far as UEFA is concerned for the 6 clubs in the PL that should be the end of it. UEFA's punishments appear to be well-measured and proportionate - because at the end of the day it's almost impossible to see what if any financial damage or lasting damage to the game this episode leaves behind it - in many cases, pundits and commentators opinion and even governments think it gives them the long-overdue opportunity to get involved and step in and create a legal framework for long term control of the sport.

However, it appears to be the Premier League is now simply out for revenge and wants to punish and perhaps even do so disproportionally. Very large fines and even point deductions may well follow soon, perhaps the point deductions are unlikely., but it's being suggested the fines will be punitive along with an undertaking that if they ever do it again, they'd have to pay a £100 million fine.

It will of course be at a time when we can least afford it, whether it's levied against the clubs or by some mechanism I can't yet see against the owners is yet to be made clear. What recourse we have to appeal against the punishments if they are punitive is as yet unknown, but I wouldn't rule out legal appeals that could go on for years unless the '6' waive their right to natural justice processes.

Should the PL do what it looks like it's going to do, it will be a pure act of self-interested revenge and may well match the actions of those who jumped hastily into the SL.

Financial pressures are like no other pressure you will face, whether it be personal or business and in our owners' case, what's business is also highly personal.

I for one now completely understand what these pressures can do when it comes to making critical decisions and I fear that our fans and our club will be the ones that will truly be made to suffer if the PL is allowed to carry out its act of our revenge.

The reality is the PL should have the presence of mind to realize it's in danger of acting out of anger, self-interest, and unmitigated revenge and appoint a separate legal panel made up of non-PL members to decide what is proportionate and appropriate.
 
Last edited:

Nick Real Deal

Vital Football Legend
The 6 PL teams involved must have looked into the implications of punitive action.

What are the clauses in the various bodies like UEFA and the PL which prevent or deter participation in other competitions. ?
Is it challengable in a court of law ?

I'm not sure I like the threat over football clubs not to consider new leagues or formats.
As has been suggested Levy may have been forced into agreeing to take part due to our unfortunate financial position.
 
The 6 PL teams involved must have looked into the implications of punitive action.

What are the clauses in the various bodies like UEFA and the PL which prevent or deter participation in other competitions. ?
Is it challengable in a court of law ?

I'm not sure I like the threat over football clubs not to consider new leagues or formats.
As has been suggested Levy may have been forced into agreeing to take part due to our unfortunate financial position.
If you recall, the SL lodged injunctions in all the major jurisdictions to preempt legal action being taken against them, but now that they've chosen to stay, this is now moot.

The PL on the other hand have a specific clause in it's founding charter to prevent it. What isn't clear is the penalties for trying to do - so far the remaining 14 PL clubs are all howling for blood as they see it as a chance to reverse any big club influence (they've already pressured all these execs that work for the big 6 to resign from PL positions).

They now wish to do lasting damage to the big 6 is how it looks to me; personally, if they go too far I'd expect the Big 6 to come together and take them on in the courts (which is what I've heard is already being discussed by some very large firms in some of the biggest legal chambers in the country).

This could get really messy now, unless the PL act with some restraint and as I've said also hand the issue of punishment over to an independent body - which would the fair and appropriate thing to do.

What they do now could affect us for years to come and create enduring resentment at all levels, including from fans who do not want this to be seen as an opportunity to penalise their clubs - if the PL find a way to only penalise the owners then all well be it, but I am told they cannot do it, they will have to hurt the clubs.
 

Nick Real Deal

Vital Football Legend
If you recall, the SL lodged injunctions in all the major jurisdictions to preempt legal action being taken against them, but now that they've chosen to stay, this is now moot.

The PL on the other hand have a specific clause in it's founding charter to prevent it. What isn't clear is the penalties for trying to do - so far the remaining 14 PL clubs are all howling for blood as they see it as a chance to reverse any big club influence (they've already pressured all these execs that work for the big 6 to resign from PL positions).

They now wish to do lasting damage to the big 6 is how it looks to me; personally, if they go too far I'd expect the Big 6 to come together and take them on in the courts (which is what I've heard is already being discussed by some very large firms in some of the biggest legal chambers in the country).

This could get really messy now, unless the PL act with some restraint and as I've said also hand the issue of punishment over to an independent body - which would the fair and appropriate thing to do.

What they do now could affect us for years to come and create enduring resentment at all levels, including from fans who do not want this to be seen as an opportunity to penalise their clubs - if the PL find a way to only penalise the owners then all well be it, but I am told they cannot do it, they will have to hurt the clubs.
So did the big 6 just ignore clauses in agreements with all the bodies ? Surely legal examination would have been carried out ?
 
Ya know..........when a group of people tries to break away from something they initially get pilloried.

Two things normally happen.

The first is the group they are leaving blame everyone but themselves and never asks themselves why it is happening.

And the second........a couple of years later everyone is happy again because it wasn't such a bad option after all. And has freshened things up.
 
European Super League: Real Madrid, Barcelona & Juventus defend plans in face of Uefa 'threat'
Last updated on
8 May 20218 May 2021.From the section European Football
Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus are the only clubs from the original 12 to sign up for the ESL not to renounce the breakaway league
Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus have defended their plans for a European Super League in the face of what they call "threats" from Uefa.
They are the only clubs from the initial 12 yet to withdraw from the proposed ESL, and face disciplinary action from Europe's governing body.

The nine other clubs involved, including six Premier League sides, have been given a financial punishment.
"The founding clubs have suffered," a Real, Barca and Juve statement said.
The three clubs say they have faced "unacceptable third-party pressures [and] threats... to abandon the project", which they feel is an effort to have them "desist from their right and duty to provide solutions to the football ecosystem via concrete proposals and constructive dialogue".
"This is intolerable under the rule of law," the joint statement continued.
The ESL was announced on 18 April but within 48 hours the plans had fallen apart, with the English clubs withdrawing after fan protests and UK government pressure.
While the furious backlash stopped plans from going ahead, those behind the ESL have maintained it had a sound legal footing. As a result, they were quick to file injunctions to prevent player and club bans after the proposal was made public.
On Friday, the nine that have pulled out - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur, plus AC Milan, Inter Milan and Atletico Madrid - said they would "take all steps within their power" to end their involvement in the breakaway league.
Barca, Juve and Real have said they "are ready to reconsider the proposed approach", but reiterated their stance that the structure of elite football in Europe, its appeal to younger generations and the financial pressures facing clubs, need to be addressed.
"We would be highly irresponsible if, being aware of the needs and systemic crisis in the football sector, which led us to announce the Super League, we abandoned such mission to provide effective and sustainable answers to the existential questions that threaten the football industry," they said.
"The material issues that led the 12 founding clubs to announce the Super League weeks ago have not gone away.
"To honour our history, to comply with our obligations towards our stakeholders and fans, for the good of football and for the financial sustainability of the sector, we have the duty to act in a responsible manner and persevere in the pursuit of adequate solutions, despite the unacceptable and ongoing pressures and threats received from Uefa."
The clubs said they "regret to see" the other nine clubs "now found themselves in such inconsistent and contradictory position when signing a number of commitments to Uefa".
The nine clubs who withdrew have agreed to make a combined 15m euro (£13.4m) goodwill contribution to benefit children's and grassroots football across Europe.
They will also have 5% of Uefa competition revenues withheld for one season, starting in 2023-24, and this money will be redistributed, including in the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57036397
 

USAFSPURS

Vital Champions League
Ya know..........when a group of people tries to break away from something they initially get pilloried.

Two things normally happen.

The first is the group they are leaving blame everyone but themselves and never asks themselves why it is happening.

And the second........a couple of years later everyone is happy again because it wasn't such a bad option after all. And has freshened things up.
And of course....MONEY