Just how should we finish the season?

JJ red&white

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
120
As much as it pains me, ppg seems the only fair way. That would obviously put Cheltenham above is which is a killer, but I see no other way. To soften the blow slightly, I’d prefer that only automatic places got promoted as I’m not sure giving 4th place promotion would represent how the play offs historically go in any way!
This is obviously if the season cannot be finished, which is my preference. But to finish behind closed doors, is just not financially viable for league 1 and 2 clubs, unless they managed to get several thousand watching on ifollow all paying 15quid a game, which isn’t going to happen.
what should happen for the sake of football (but it won’t), is that games are finished behind closed doors, and the PL pay several hundred million to the efl to cover costs of clubs for remainder of season. 200m is still a drop in the ocean to the PL, and will no doubt be less costly to football, than all the legal battles that would come from any cancellation or ppg calculation.
 

Legohead

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
4,802
Location
Mosh pit
JJ makes a good point which I missed. If the games could be finished behind closed doors due to the financial outlay for clubs being met by the PL then that would be the most ideal scenario and that would be welcomed.

I can't see the financial help happening though which is why I went for a total scrapping of the leagues.
 

Grecian Max

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
10,390
Sounds like PPG but weighted towards home and away games. Anyone clever enough to see where that would put us?
 

jimmy

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
470
Location
If Carlsberg did football clubs...
Genuine question. Would playing behind closed doors, collecting say £10 a game per subscriber, be worse for finances than cancelling the season and potentially waiting months and months for crowds again?
 

John William

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
7,283
Location
I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee
This is obviously if the season cannot be finished, which is my preference. But to finish behind closed doors, is just not financially viable for league 1 and 2 clubs, unless they managed to get several thousand watching on ifollow all paying 15quid a game, which isn’t going to happen.
what should happen for the sake of football (but it won’t), is that games are finished behind closed doors, and the PL pay several hundred million to the efl to cover costs of clubs for remainder of season. 200m is still a drop in the ocean to the PL, and will no doubt be less costly to football, than all the legal battles that would come from any cancellation or ppg calculation.
Not sure it would be anything like £200M - Andy Holt of Accrington estimated £0.5M per club in Leagues 1 and 2.
 

GCHQ

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
19
We end up 5th (about 0.6 pts behind Cheltenham)
That's on a normal calculation without home and away taken into separate consideration.

City have 2.05 points per home game, 1.47 away.

Cheltenham have 2.1 home, 1.4 away.

If my maths is right then taken like this, City's average is 1.76; Cheltenham's is 1.75.

Obviously this doesn't take into account weighting but this would put us above them if they do split it like this.
 

Legohead

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
4,802
Location
Mosh pit
Genuine question. Would playing behind closed doors, collecting say £10 a game per subscriber, be worse for finances than cancelling the season and potentially waiting months and months for crowds again?
I would say that it would be a lot worse for finances. The crux of it I think would be the fact that in order to continue playing, the club would have to unfurlough players and staff and continue paying them again.

Just say we get 4500 for an average home game, how many people would subscribe and pay the tenner for every game? Not 4500 I can be sure. At £10 each that's nearly a tenner lost anyway on revenue for each person who would have paid to go the actual real home game. So for each subscriber i'd say the club is actually losing X amount of pounds per game.

Also how will it work with away games? The costs associated with away games in terms of travel and accommodation is still there. Ok so perhaps the team could travel to away games on the day, no matter how far and not stay in a hotel but what about other clubs? Do Plymouth have to play Carlisle for example or vice versa? Wouldn't want to be travelling up there on the day and playing then coming home again.

This raises the question of neutral venues again. How many of a typical 4500 home gate would want to pay £10 to watch Exeter play in front of no fans at a neutral ground?

Also current season ticket holders. Presumably they'd be entitled to the home game coverage free as they've already paid. Further reducing income from these games.

Then there is the catering and hospitality which the club would miss out on for obvious reasons.


For me it's just a no no. Significant losses would be incurred from finishing the season without any money from the PL or football authorities to make up that deficit.
 
Top