What date will we be back watching live football at SJP Thread.

denzel

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
7,610
Location
The Travel Tavern
Report of the potential EFL bailout from the PL.
The Grecians get a mention in the last paragraph.
I'm not sure I like the undertone in that article. There suggests that there is a possibility that clubs like Birmingham and us who have profited from player sales will receive less money.
Why not just give a pro rata payment to each club?
 

RedPaul

Active member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
3,331
Location
Woking
I'm not sure I like the undertone in that article. There suggests that there is a possibility that clubs like Birmingham and us who have profited from player sales will receive less money.
Why not just give a pro rata payment to each club?
It should be simple. Payments should be there to cover match-day income not being received as fans aren't allowed. Given we have detailled historic data going way back, in the public domain, on attendances, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the authorities to distribute fairly, almost on a match by match basis. We were due to host Salford on a Tuesday night in November. We get less for that game than we would if we were playing Bolton on a Saturday in September.

Payments shouldn't just turn clubs that were loss-making due to living beyond their means into profit-making clubs.
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
27,446
Location
Touring Central Java...
I'm not sure I like the undertone in that article. There suggests that there is a possibility that clubs like Birmingham and us who have profited from player sales will receive less money.
Why not just give a pro rata payment to each club?
I will be absolutely fuming if the clubs that are in difficulty purely down to their own poor or dodgy ownership are subsidised whilst City, financially responsible, are not.
I would imagine that Taggy and the two boards will pull their hair out if that is the case, too.
However, clubs that have been responsible but in difficulty only because they have a very small fan base should be helped.
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
27,446
Location
Touring Central Java...
It should be simple. Payments should be there to cover match-day income not being received as fans aren't allowed. Given we have detailled historic data going way back, in the public domain, on attendances, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the authorities to distribute fairly, almost on a match by match basis. We were due to host Salford on a Tuesday night in November. We get less for that game than we would if we were playing Bolton on a Saturday in September.

Payments shouldn't just turn clubs that were loss-making due to living beyond their means into profit-making clubs.
Good idea, but might be too much work for the authorities.
 

RedPaul

Active member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
3,331
Location
Woking
I will be absolutely fuming if the clubs that are in difficulty purely down to their own poor or dodgy ownership are subsidised whilst City, financially responsible, are not.
I would imagine that Taggy and the two boards will pull their hair out if that is the case, too.
However, clubs that have been responsible but in difficulty only because they have a very small fan base should be helped.
Why? If they only have a very small fan base, they aren't losing as much by the lack of fans.

They should be helped for the fact that those fans are legally not allowed to attend (including expected away attendance) and directly related income such as match-day hospitality, bar, pie, programme sales - nothing else.
 
Top