clarkeysntfc
|
You state 'additional income will be zero' but are Sky televising all the play-off games?
Therefore they will pay the teams as per the contract?
That is true, I had not thought of the TV element, which would be a small contribution to the coffers.
|
|
|
|
Coolcat
|
Given that it appears likely that 'next' season is to be played behind closed doors also, there cannot be any real financial benefit should the Cobblers get promoted to League One anyway!
|
|
|
|
West Stand
|
That is true, I had not thought of the TV element, which would be a small contribution to the coffers.
Looking at the rules on the EFL website the teams don't receive any TV income for play off games. Which would make sense as EFL clubs don't get payments for individual EFL games shown. Just a set amount depending on the division the club is in.
|
|
|
|
CobblerForever
|
Given that it appears likely that 'next' season is to be played behind closed doors also, there cannot be any real financial benefit should the Cobblers get promoted to League One anyway!
Have the solidarity payments from the Premier League been suspended ? A quick look - I couldn't see anything definitive. League 1 sides used to receive more than League 2.
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
Last season league 1 was £675k per team and League 2 was £450k
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
|
|
|
guest1269
|
Given that it appears likely that 'next' season is to be played behind closed doors also, there cannot be any real financial benefit should the Cobblers get promoted to League One anyway!
Not being argumentative for the sake of it but where does any of the EFL statements comment about next season - it seems as if today’s statement there is still some issues going to vote on finishing this season.
|
|
|
|
Coolcat
|
Not being argumentative for the sake of it but where does any of the EFL statements comment about next season - it seems as if today’s statement there is still some issues going to vote on finishing this season.
It was reference Clarky's previous post about financial rewards of being promoted to League One.
|
|
|
|
EB Claret
|
If the Swindon chairman carried out his threat to put the club into administration, how many points could they be docked?, could we be playing them instead of Cheltenham?
|
|
|
|
guest2934
|
Some wonderful news emerging from league one, that lifted my day. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52758193It seems very possible the Fen swamp donkeys may miss out. I've always liked that Gareth Ainsworth, I'll be swapping my Fleetwood scarf for a Wycombe one. You shouldn't really mention the Irish and explosions in the same sentence but McAnthony will be blowing up. Popcorn anybody?
|
|
|
|
bungle
|
The Cheltenham boss Duff is quoted in the Chron as saying that he is concerned that 'if [the cost of completing the play-off games] is £200-300,000, that will be a big chunk of our budget for next season'.
Again, I'm probably being thick here but how does potentially running three games of behind-closed-doors football equate to 200k-300k?
If that really is the case then surely a special case can be made regarding TV money for this year (assuming West Stand is right and clubs don't usually get money for televised play-off matches). You would think that there would certainly be a big appetite out there amongst casual fans to watch play-off games this year.
|
|
|
|
guest1269
|
Again, I'm probably being thick here but how does potentially running three games of behind-closed-doors football equate to 200k-300k?
I think it’s more a case of lost revenue rather than actual cost - probably exaggerated considering Cheltenham’s gates although getting to the final would bring in a gate receipt bonus.
|
|
|
|
bungle
|
No, if I'm interpreting him correctly, he's saying that the four teams potentially participating in the play-offs (and particularly the three 'losers') will end up being at a financial disadvantage compared to other League Two teams due to the costs involved in staging the games.
|
|
|
|
1971cobbler
|
No, if I'm interpreting him correctly, he's saying that the four teams potentially participating in the play-offs (and particularly the three 'losers') will end up being at a financial disadvantage compared to other League Two teams due to the costs involved in staging the games.
Very likely to be due to the deep cleaning and constant testing that each of the clubs are going to have to undertake?
|
|
|
|
Larry
|
Very likely to be due to the deep cleaning and constant testing that each of the clubs are going to have to undertake?
They would only have to test them once just before the game and you'd like to think they would do the deep cleaning anyway before the start of next season.
|
|
|
|
EB Claret
|
They would only have to test them once just before the game and you'd like to think they would do the deep cleaning anyway before the start of next season.
I'm sure I read that the advice is two tests per week plus one before a game. No idea what that would cost.
|
|
|
|
DrillingCobbler
|
The Cheltenham boss Duff is quoted in the Chron as saying that he is concerned that 'if [the cost of completing the play-off games] is £200-300,000, that will be a big chunk of our budget for next season'.
Again, I'm probably being thick here but how does potentially running three games of behind-closed-doors football equate to 200k-300k?
If that really is the case then surely a special case can be made regarding TV money for this year (assuming West Stand is right and clubs don't usually get money for televised play-off matches). You would think that there would certainly be a big appetite out there amongst casual fans to watch play-off games this year.
I suspect, much of this cost will be keeping the players on for another month beyond their contracts expiring. Obviously, if they are training as well during June, they wont be able to be on furlough. So if Cheltenham's wage bill is say, 1.5 million - 125k a month - there's 250k for starters!
|
|
|
|
bungle
|
Very likely to be due to the deep cleaning and constant testing that each of the clubs are going to have to undertake?
It seems you are correct 1971. An article in The Independent quotes the cost of testing at £140,000 and states that this is the major reason why the Women's Super League has been cancelled. Teams who are not participating in the play-offs will potentially be at a financial advantage because they won't have to fork out for testing. (Or at least they won't have to until if and when it's still in place before the start of next season.) I hope that the league takes these costs into account and makes a decision on the TV money accordingly. I also think that a single one off play-off semi final would be a lot more sensible than a two-legged affair.
|
|
|
|
1971cobbler
|
It seems you are correct 1971. An article in The Independent quotes the cost of testing at £140,000 and states that this is the major reason why the Women's Super League has been cancelled.
Teams who are not participating in the play-offs will potentially be at a financial advantage because they won't have to fork out for testing. (Or at least they won't have to until if and when it's still in place before the start of next season.)
I hope that the league takes these costs into account and makes a decision on the TV money accordingly. I also think that a single one off play-off semi final would be a lot more sensible than a two-legged affair.
Or, to save even more money, the two semi finals can be a game of socially distanced rock paper scissors (best of three of course!), and then just one final with rolling substitutes.
|
|
|
|
guest3086
|
After a 10 week break most of the players could be 'rolling substitutes'.
|
|
|
|
|