0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Why point the finger at the EFL? Cos it's easy?As we know through S_M, club ownership and financial matters are currently under review including government involvement. Far wider reaching than what the EFL control!
As an industry, football has the resources to intervene to prevent these events over small amounts of money.One decent cup draw with fans present would cover it. The trouble is that all the members are in it for themselves, and are much less concerned over the health of the game overall.A bond is one solution. Another might be an interest free loan with a specified timetable for repayment as a first charge on the business.It would be very helpful to set up a package of measures before the Covid dominoes start to fall.Not expecting it, on past form!https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/16/macclesfield-face-extinction-after-being-wound-up-with-debts-of-500000
The idea is you make it first call on the club to repay.So before they spend any other money, they must service the loan as per agreement. How long you extend the repayment period is a live question.With HMRC, who brought Macc to court over £150k....all payments to HMRC should go by direct debit every month as a first charge.No club should be allowed to use HMRC as a lending facility. If this were written into EFL rules, there would be no debt to HMRC and no winding up actions brought by HMRC.After that, you need a hierarchy of priorities for debt management.Clubs should show that they have a funded plan to manage existing debt, and a strategy to reduce that debt to zero over a specified period.Many club owners are chancers who have poor financial management skills.The only way to prevent the Macc situation arising again is to prevent the reasons for the difficulty at source.To be honest, some clubs need to rebase their business model on actual income. That might mean dropping down a league or two, and revising expectations.If it is that or no club, which would most fans choose?
If I remember correctly, Sol Campbell said last December that he was owed around £180,000 by Macclesfield.I don’t suppose he ever got that.
Quote from: drfchound on September 17, 2020, 09:35:59 amIf I remember correctly, Sol Campbell said last December that he was owed around £180,000 by Macclesfield.I don’t suppose he ever got that.That post sums up how broken football finances are.Macclesfield are/were 90th on the list of average attendances in the top four divisions. Campbell was manager for 9 months and somehow they've run up a debt equal to about 7 times average annual earnings.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 17, 2020, 10:44:14 amQuote from: drfchound on September 17, 2020, 09:35:59 amIf I remember correctly, Sol Campbell said last December that he was owed around £180,000 by Macclesfield.I don’t suppose he ever got that.That post sums up how broken football finances are.Macclesfield are/were 90th on the list of average attendances in the top four divisions. Campbell was manager for 9 months and somehow they've run up a debt equal to about 7 times average annual earnings.Even with my basic maths that works out at £20k a month............ that is ridiculous.
Very sad to hear. I was listening to Talk Sport on Wednesday when this was announced - then not even an hour later it was suggested that 'football' may have to stump up around the £35 million mark for fans to get tested to get back into stadiums.Why can't 'football' help out with £500,000?!
Quote from: SoundbiteBarmyArmy on September 18, 2020, 10:06:11 amVery sad to hear. I was listening to Talk Sport on Wednesday when this was announced - then not even an hour later it was suggested that 'football' may have to stump up around the £35 million mark for fans to get tested to get back into stadiums.Why can't 'football' help out with £500,000?!The problem there though SBA is if clubs knew they would be bailed out if they were in difficulty then they would not have an incentive to run the club in a sound financial manor.