Will BFC survive the pandemic?

250kandout

Well-known member
Say for example the league is paused / abandoned due to COVID again, what is everyones thoughts on BFC and it's viability even surviving?

Yes I know we have have "Simon Sadler" our custodian but business is business. I would like to think we are better placed than other clubs maybe even in the top 20% of more viable clubs.

Worrying times across the FL and spare a thought for the National League that won't even probably kick off, this may force clubs to cease existing. A friend of mine is a Notts County fan and he is worried big time.

Surely it's about time draconian measures such as the TV money being shared more widely right down to LG2 and NL?

Be sad to see any club fold in these times, football may never be the same without 92 members.
 
Introduce a 5% extra tax on all Prem players with immediate effect until next TV deal.

5% tax then on all tv money.

Independent panel then splits money between leagues below prem until this mess is over.
 
I know it is a pipe dream for clubs of the Prem to share the wealth. Unless some intervention there will be a lot of Bury's etc
 
worrying times for football and life in general mass unemployment on its way which means less money to spend on football holidays sky sports all these things will damage the industry i think it will end up everyman for himself.
 
Think there’s a much better chance with SS in charge rather than rapey or can you imagine bst, what a fuk up that could’ve been......
 
Players will need to accept much reduced more realistic salaries, or clubs will go bust & they will get nothing.... Again I say this, a league 1 (3rd division) footballer should be on no more than £40k pa, very few other professionals earn anywhere near half that in their late teens early 20s
Not the same though as very few professionals peak on their early twenties / late teens.
A Dr / Law professional earns their best money when they have experience - not so for footballers as it’s largely based on physical performance.
A top level League 1 player should be able to earn 4 grand a week if they’re more than capable of stepping up to the Championship. The problem arises when clubs pay crazy wages for players NOT good enough and tie them into long term contracts - that’s usually a sin committed by Championship clubs and those who drop into League 1 or those who gamble on buying their way out of League 1
 
Not the same though as very few professionals peak on their early twenties / late teens.
A Dr / Law professional earns their best money when they have experience - not so for footballers as it’s largely based on physical performance.
A top level League 1 player should be able to earn 4 grand a week if they’re more than capable of stepping up to the Championship. The problem arises when clubs pay crazy wages for players NOT good enough and tie them into long term contracts - that’s usually a sin committed by Championship clubs and those who drop into League 1 or those who gamble on buying their way out of League 1
Yes I agree to a point, but then clubs can't go crying to the government for financial support, just because they made a bad business decision... I dont see pubs over paying bar staff then asking for support as their staff are costing way too much. (not a great example, but my point is, you cut your cloth according to your ability to pay) if that pay is a gamble & you are stung, tough, thats why I mean, clubs need to cut their cloth (wages) according to their ability to pay them... ie a glut of average players, will need to accept a lot less, supply & demand...
 
Yes I agree to a point, but then clubs can't go crying to the government for financial support, just because they made a bad business decision... I dont see pubs over paying bar staff then asking for support as their staff are costing way too much. (not a great example, but my point is, you cut your cloth according to your ability to pay) if that pay is a gamble & you are stung, tough, thats why I mean, clubs need to cut their cloth (wages) according to their ability to pay them... ie a glut of average players, will need to accept a lot less, supply & demand...
Completely agree. But the current situation is seeing clubs suffer despite having cut their cloth - unfortunately the cloth that was once a available isn’t anymore and that is partially down to the government - as such they should really be supporting the leagues and clubs.
Clubs that overspend and suffer as a result of bad business decisions really shouldn’t be able to seek assistance - it should be a burden on the ownership of the club. Clubs shouldn’t be allowed to just disappear though - the golden share, the clubs identity should be held by trusts so bad ownership doesn’t result in clubs folding. HMRC would therefore be taking every penny from the Macclesfield owner and Macclesfield itself would continue should another entity be able to step up and take the golden share - whilst of course proving themselves to be worthy custodians.
The ideas of trusts and bonds should be used - therefore a club owner can guarantee a clubs basic survival but at the same time invest all they like as long as that money and risk is on them and not instead mortgaged against the clubs very existence.
 
We may be in a good position financially with our owner as may a few other clubs. But what happens when dozens of others do go to the wall?.
A bit like one of them last person on earth films when at the end they realise having survived death it's not worth living without anyone else.
 
In the 2019 summer transfer window, Premier League clubs spent £1400 million on transfer fees. A levy of 2% on that would raise £28 million which would be sufficient to pay every club in Leagues 1 and 2 a grant of £583,000. That would make a great contribution to offset lost home crowd revenue for most of them, perhaps half their gate income for the smaller clubs. And might take some of the heat out of the transfer market. I mean, if agents are demanding 10% and 15% of transfer fees, then 2% to support lower league clubs is doable.

And we haven’t even considered the Prem TV income... that’s another £1200 million a season (though of course we need to be careful of double counting as it’s the TV money that funds the transfers), of which about £106 mill goes in solidarity payments to the lower leagues. Even if the extra payments were temporary until Covid has gone away and crowds return it would show that football is a large community.

Am I hopeful of this? Am I heck. The bigger clubs would love to see a smaller number of clubs, as they think it’s more income for them, but they are playing a dangerous game. Losing a lot of smaller clubs could turn people off football and might lead to a campaign where many cancelled Sky TV subscriptions.

At present, each League 1 club receives about £700k in solidarity payments from the Prem and each League 2 club gets about £470k. The EFL shares out about £90 million of their TV money among all 72 clubs though the Championship clubs get the lion’s share. So additional levies of £500k as support to small clubs for a temporary period would not break the bank.
 
Last edited:
Probably only 1 person can answer that...
Simon Sadler.....
How much dosh has he got or how much does he want to borrow...
 
It is perverse that a Prem Player earns as much in a month as what would be required to save some of the smaller clubs from bankruptcy. Great there is so much money in the game nowadays, but even Cup money is perverse that say the FA Cup is a lifeline to non league sides and yet still the biggest slice of the cake will always go to the Prem clubs.
 
The moral of the (TV) story is for fans not to subscribe to satellite and cable companies, and let the income start to dry up.
The PL have just signed a multi million pound deal with China and have it coming in from every angle,and the last thing they'll be doing is worrying about the lower leagues.

Worth mentioning the PFA in this who get a slice and who should be doing more to redress the imbalance in my view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the 2019 summer transfer window, Premier League clubs spent £1400 million on transfer fees. A levy of 2% on that would raise £28 million which would be sufficient to pay every club in Leagues 1 and 2 a grant of £583,000. That would make a great contribution to offset lost home crowd revenue for most of them, perhaps half their gate income for the smaller clubs. And might take some of the heat out of the transfer market. I mean, if agents are demanding 10% and 15% of transfer fees, then 2% to support lower league clubs is doable.

And we haven’t even considered the Prem TV income... that’s another £1200 million a season (though of course we need to be careful of double counting as it’s the TV money that funds the transfers), of which about £106 mill goes in solidarity payments to the lower leagues. Even if the extra payments were temporary until Covid has gone away and crowds return it would show that football is a large community.

Am I hopeful of this? Am I heck. The bigger clubs would love to see a smaller number of clubs, as they think it’s more income for them, but they are playing a dangerous game. Losing a lot of smaller clubs could turn people off football and might lead to a campaign where many cancelled Sky TV subscriptions.

At present, each League 1 club receives about £700k in solidarity payments from the Prem and each League 2 club gets about £470k. The EFL shares out about £90 million of their TV money among all 72 clubs though the Championship clubs get the lion’s share. So additional levies of £500k as support to small clubs for a temporary period would not break the bank.
The elephant in the room is that people still think of the EPL and EFL as a single competition because of automatic promotion and relegation. They're not, and that's why the EPL don't feel any obligation to support the separate organisation in the tiers below them.

The EPL was set up with the sole purpose of directing revenue to the top clubs at the expense of the rest of the game, who were left to make their own arrangements.

Once that clear distinction is reached, we can't expect and won't get any support from above other than maybe something dressed up as support, but is in reality, a charitable donation with no obligation to subsequent funding. Just listen to Sean Dyche for how the rest of football is perceived at the top.

Literally I'm alright Jack. Stuff the rest of you.
 
The huge difference between the PL and the rest of football just gets bigger and bigger and until someone takes the bull by the horns and puts a levy on the obscene amount of money a PL player gets then football at all levels below the PL is in grave danger. These overseas players and their agents can't believe the money available to them when coming to the PL, they'd have no problem with a small pre tax levy on their wages, it would be a lifeline for all of football from grass roots upwards to the EFL.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be difficult to put a levy on a player’s wage. That is a direct private contract between club and player. The EPL/EFL/FA are not partners to it. However, transfers involve the registration of a player with the authorities, so that process is where the levy could be applied. Similarly with the TV deals which are negotiated by the EPL/EFL. However, I fully appreciate the “Sod you, Jack” attitude. But they are sickening the whole game.

As I said, it need only be temporary while Covid is threatening to destroy some of our smaller football clubs. But I would hope it started a huge change in the stupidly selfish attitude of the larger PL clubs.
 
Last edited:
Players will need to accept much reduced more realistic salaries, or clubs will go bust & they will get nothing.... Again I say this, a league 1 (3rd division) footballer should be on no more than £40k pa, very few other professionals earn anywhere near half that in their late teens early 20s
Very few other professionals are forced to retire in their early 30s
 
Just thank Christ we are no longer owned by the Oyston's. In my opinion, they would have treated the pandemic as a God sent opportunity to fold the club and build houses on Bloomfield Road. (Or they would have at least tried).
 
Following last Saturdays' match I think more with fans should be given a go.
If the rules as laid down by 'BoJo' are followed I see no reason why not.
 
I would expect that SS made provision for a second wave in the winter, it’s been regularly stressed by the scientists, and he’s not daft. He’s continued to invest in the club and I doubt he would have done if he hadn’t done his forecasts on worst case scenario.
 
Talk Sport have just said....
19 out of 24 league 1 clubs will go into administration .....
If the current situation persists
 
The moral of the (TV) story is for fans not to subscribe to satellite and cable companies, and let the income start to dry up.
The PL have just signed a multi million pound deal with China and have it coming in from every angle,and the last thing they'll be doing is worrying about the lower leagues.

Worth mentioning the PFA in this who get a slice and who should be doing more to redress the imbalance in my view.

Plumbs

Not sure that trying that trying to starve the top clubs, the very same clubs that you are asking/expecting to support the other clubs is the way to go ?

The top end of the game may provide some form of support because of the current circumstances but they have their own issues and won't be dishing out handouts to other clubs who may have not been run properly.

The top clubs generate the income and are always going to retain the lions share and it may be in their interest for monies to drip down, we've been here before and it's all about balance as you suggest.

Where does the line get drawn ? I guess that's the $64m question and different parties will have different ideas on that.
 
Plumbs

Not sure that trying that trying to starve the top clubs, the very same clubs that you are asking/expecting to support the other clubs is the way to go ?

The top end of the game may provide some form of support because of the current circumstances but they have their own issues and won't be dishing out handouts to other clubs who may have not been run properly.

The top clubs generate the income and are always going to retain the lions share and it may be in their interest for monies to drip down, we've been here before and it's all about balance as you suggest.

Where does the line get drawn ? I guess that's the $64m question and different parties will have different ideas on that.
Good call given the covid stuff but a sub would ingratiate the EFL clubs and exacerbate the general situation, where eventually we'd end up at square one again.
Beggars might indeed not be choosers but isnt it a reflection of the mess football has got itself into?

Very much I feel like a Victorian workhouse situation where you have to tug your forelock and be grateful for being employed, rather than be free and able to earn a decent living elsewhere...
 
The elephant in the room is that people still think of the EPL and EFL as a single competition because of automatic promotion and relegation. They're not, and that's why the EPL don't feel any obligation to support the separate organisation in the tiers below them.

The EPL was set up with the sole purpose of directing revenue to the top clubs at the expense of the rest of the game, who were left to make their own arrangements.

Once that clear distinction is reached, we can't expect and won't get any support from above other than maybe something dressed up as support, but is in reality, a charitable donation with no obligation to subsequent funding. Just listen to Sean Dyche for how the rest of football is perceived at the top.

Literally I'm alright Jack. Stuff the rest of you.

Sean Dyche and Burnley would do well to remember where they've come from (and will likely end up). I remember Bolton being a champion of the Premier league becoming a closed shop, and now they've become a victim of the wealth magnet that they advocated for so long.
 
Good call given the covid stuff but a sub would ingratiate the EFL clubs and exacerbate the general situation, where eventually we'd end up at square one again.
Beggars might indeed not be choosers but isnt it a reflection of the mess football has got itself into?

Very much I feel like a Victorian workhouse situation where you have to tug your forelock and be grateful for being employed, rather than be free and able to earn a decent living elsewhere...

I am not suggesting that the Premier League clubs shouldn't provide aid for the lower league clubs and I certainly don't have any problem with them doing so but they are unlikely to be able to provide support if there was a massive reduction in Sky subscribers.

I don't who should or will provide the financial support that the lower leagues will very likely require, Government, Premier League, suspension of season, etc and it's not an exact science but I was listening to Darragh McAnthony - I'm guessing you won't be a fan ? - the other day and thought he spoke allot of sense on the matter.

I'm guessing you won't have any time for him but I thought he made good points regarding financial support from the Government, he feels he could safely have 4,000 punters at home matches and the authorities are telling him he can have none despite the fact there are large gatherings throughout the country, shopping centres, beaches etc.

I am not saying that football matches are safer than the other gatherings but given the thoroughness demonstrated by various pilots - football and other events - I can't imagine that they'd be any more dangerous than many of the gatherings that are currently allowed/tolerated and surely if the Government is telling the clubs that they are not allowed to operate in a normal manner then surely serious consideration must be given to providing football clubs with the financial support required ?

Sorry Plumbs, my reply was meant to brief and I think I've changed the subject, really I was just saying that I don't know exactly who should provide aid and although I hear what you say but I don't think that we'll ever agree when it comes to the distribution of Premier League monies.

That is certainly not to say that I am right and you are wrong, we just won't agree.
 
Good call given the covid stuff but a sub would ingratiate the EFL clubs and exacerbate the general situation, where eventually we'd end up at square one again.
Beggars might indeed not be choosers but isnt it a reflection of the mess football has got itself into?

Very much I feel like a Victorian workhouse situation where you have to tug your forelock and be grateful for being employed, rather than be free and able to earn a decent living elsewhere...
My boss keeps telling us we should feel lucky to have a job given the numbers of people who are undoubtedly going to lose theirs. Of course I agree, but it does feel like we’re being told to doff our caps and do whatever is asked of us or face the consequences.
 
Prospering in the short to medium term depends on the continuing wealth of Mr Sadler. If COVID damages his business it could be bad news us. However, I've never been more confident that my team will not only see me out but will still be there for the next generation. Ultimately any club is its fans and when I see what some of my fellow supporters have done with the Armfield club I know this is one club that won't die however bad things get this year and next.
 
Back
Top