Author Topic: Where would clubs stand ST wise....  (Read 958 times)

Offline Syd Cupp

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 417
Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« on: March 28, 2020, 09:35:20 PM »
Firstly hope that you are as well as can be and as safe as can be during this tough time.

Just out of curiosity as I don't think that this has been mentioned. Due to the severity of other matters non football related.

IF all the leagues were to be ended by the FA body etc where would the clubs stand on games remaining on season tickets.?
would supporters be awarded a reduction for the future season ticket when normality continues.
Refunded for the matches that were cancelled due to said FA body season closure.

Just seeing what people would suggest or be happy to do.


Offline filham

  • Mr Fayed
  • **
  • Posts: 12086
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2020, 09:47:05 PM »
It is not important enough to even think about compared with all other matters associated with conovavirus.

Offline Whitestone

  • tjl
  • *
  • Posts: 232
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2020, 10:25:58 PM »
I’m sure the club would compensate accordingly or offer a reduction on a new season ticket to those affected.


Offline WhiteJC

  • Administrator
  • Mornington Crescent
  • *
  • Posts: 61385
  • I'm tall for my height
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2020, 09:41:28 AM »
its a difficult one isn't it,
for season ticket holders it's paying for a few games that you won't see.
for the clubs its the loss of "game day" revenue, if they also give money back to season ticket holders for "missed games" then it could be the final straw?

Offline bobbo

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2020, 02:08:37 PM »
It is not important enough to even think about compared with all other matters associated with conovavirus.
0001.jpeg

Offline KJS

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1210
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2020, 06:27:23 AM »
👍


Offline RaySmith

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 6448
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2020, 07:19:06 AM »
I think if the season isn't played out, which they will try to do if possible, or if the games are behind closed doors, then the current st holders will be eligible for a reduction on their next st.

Offline Riversider

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2737
  • The Red Hand of Fulham
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2020, 07:41:28 AM »
I think if the season isn't played out, which they will try to do if possible, or if the games are behind closed doors, then the current st holders will be eligible for a reduction on their next st.

Almost impossible to hold games behind closed doors as this would require an ambulance and crew,  and to be honest they've got more important things to  do at this present time

Offline MJG

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2707
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2020, 11:23:02 AM »
its a difficult one isn't it,
for season ticket holders it's paying for a few games that you won't see.
for the clubs its the loss of "game day" revenue, if they also give money back to season ticket holders for "missed games" then it could be the final straw?
This is the real question isn't it? In the end we may well have paid for something that wasnt delivered but on other hand there ate times we have paid and not used. 
In essence if paid for a ST back in April and dont see these last few games what have you lost apart from seeing the games? The money you spent is already gone.
It's a unique situation and not as if clubs deliberately set out to make people not see the games.The right thing to do is return money owed or a credit against next season. Or just accept it's gone and move on. Some clubs will have tough decisions to make.


Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 8952
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2020, 11:35:09 AM »
In essence if paid for a ST back in April and dont see these last few games what have you lost apart from seeing the games? The money you spent is already gone.

This is it for me. No one can claim they're out of pocket or can't afford it, because they've already paid, so it would just be people trying to opportunistically claw back some money. That doesn't seem to right to me when this isn't the club's fault, and the club will be hit as hard as any of us.

The only thing I would say is, that argument collapses IMO if the players stay on full pay. You cannot keep paying wealthy 20-year-olds millions of pounds to do literally nothing, and at the same time say you're too skint to refund fans for STs. Players' pay should be completely stopped from 1 April, if it hasn't already.

Offline MJG

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2707
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2020, 11:43:47 AM »
In essence if paid for a ST back in April and dont see these last few games what have you lost apart from seeing the games? The money you spent is already gone.

This is it for me. No one can claim they're out of pocket or can't afford it, because they've already paid, so it would just be people trying to opportunistically claw back some money. That doesn't seem to right to me when this isn't the club's fault, and the club will be hit as hard as any of us.

The only thing I would say is, that argument collapses IMO if the players stay on full pay. You cannot keep paying wealthy 20-year-olds millions of pounds to do literally nothing, and at the same time say you're too skint to refund fans for STs. Players' pay should be completely stopped from 1 April, if it hasn't already.
Would cost club to pay back everyone in region of £800K-£1M I suspect

Offline Whitestone

  • tjl
  • *
  • Posts: 232
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2020, 05:03:13 PM »
There seems to have been an assumption made that all season ticket holders paid up front. That may not be the case because the club also offer a instalment plan. I have no idea over what period these plans run but is it possible that some supporters are still making payments. It’s possible that some of those on instalments plans aren’t cash rich and therefore may be struggling financially in the current situation.


Offline Sting of the North

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1979
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2020, 06:30:04 PM »
In essence if paid for a ST back in April and dont see these last few games what have you lost apart from seeing the games? The money you spent is already gone.

This is it for me. No one can claim they're out of pocket or can't afford it, because they've already paid, so it would just be people trying to opportunistically claw back some money. That doesn't seem to right to me when this isn't the club's fault, and the club will be hit as hard as any of us.

The only thing I would say is, that argument collapses IMO if the players stay on full pay. You cannot keep paying wealthy 20-year-olds millions of pounds to do literally nothing, and at the same time say you're too skint to refund fans for STs. Players' pay should be completely stopped from 1 April, if it hasn't already.

Following some of your own reasoning, it is surely not the players fault that the virus hit and it is not their decision not to train or play matches? This is as much forced upon them as it is upon us all. I do believe that it would be both reasonable and a nice gesture for the players to take a voluntary hefty wage cut or to donate a lot of money in a situation as dire as the one at hand, but I do not believe it should be forced upon them. Regardless of what one may think of the wages in today's football they have a valid contract.

Then again, maybe you didn't mean that it should be mandatory but that was the impression I got from your post.

Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 8952
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2020, 06:57:40 PM »
In essence if paid for a ST back in April and dont see these last few games what have you lost apart from seeing the games? The money you spent is already gone.

This is it for me. No one can claim they're out of pocket or can't afford it, because they've already paid, so it would just be people trying to opportunistically claw back some money. That doesn't seem to right to me when this isn't the club's fault, and the club will be hit as hard as any of us.

The only thing I would say is, that argument collapses IMO if the players stay on full pay. You cannot keep paying wealthy 20-year-olds millions of pounds to do literally nothing, and at the same time say you're too skint to refund fans for STs. Players' pay should be completely stopped from 1 April, if it hasn't already.

Following some of your own reasoning, it is surely not the players fault that the virus hit and it is not their decision not to train or play matches? This is as much forced upon them as it is upon us all. I do believe that it would be both reasonable and a nice gesture for the players to take a voluntary hefty wage cut or to donate a lot of money in a situation as dire as the one at hand, but I do not believe it should be forced upon them. Regardless of what one may think of the wages in today's football they have a valid contract.

Then again, maybe you didn't mean that it should be mandatory but that was the impression I got from your post.


The distinction I would, but admittedly didn't in my post, make regarding players is whereas there will be football clubs going bust and fans struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, the players are insulated from all this. Most of them will have already earned, even just in the first 3 months of this year, enough to live off for several years.

Offline Sting of the North

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1979
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2020, 08:55:59 AM »
In essence if paid for a ST back in April and dont see these last few games what have you lost apart from seeing the games? The money you spent is already gone.

This is it for me. No one can claim they're out of pocket or can't afford it, because they've already paid, so it would just be people trying to opportunistically claw back some money. That doesn't seem to right to me when this isn't the club's fault, and the club will be hit as hard as any of us.

The only thing I would say is, that argument collapses IMO if the players stay on full pay. You cannot keep paying wealthy 20-year-olds millions of pounds to do literally nothing, and at the same time say you're too skint to refund fans for STs. Players' pay should be completely stopped from 1 April, if it hasn't already.

Following some of your own reasoning, it is surely not the players fault that the virus hit and it is not their decision not to train or play matches? This is as much forced upon them as it is upon us all. I do believe that it would be both reasonable and a nice gesture for the players to take a voluntary hefty wage cut or to donate a lot of money in a situation as dire as the one at hand, but I do not believe it should be forced upon them. Regardless of what one may think of the wages in today's football they have a valid contract.

Then again, maybe you didn't mean that it should be mandatory but that was the impression I got from your post.


The distinction I would, but admittedly didn't in my post, make regarding players is whereas there will be football clubs going bust and fans struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, the players are insulated from all this. Most of them will have already earned, even just in the first 3 months of this year, enough to live off for several years.

I agree that it seems bitterly unfair, and the hope is of course that players act responsibly and realizes that they can be part of the solution. However they are insulated in the same way that anyone with a valid employment contract is, meaning that as long as their employer is managing they will be safe. If a club goes bankrupt however then the players are also out of luck. Whether they opt, likely following discussions with the employer, to forego whole or parts of their salary for the time being that would seem like a decent thing to do.

On whether or not they have earned enough to live off for several years, that is another discussion altogether. Who would decide what is enough? Who has the authority to confiscate the money of the rich to give to the poor? Any such acts should of course come from legislative changes in my opinion.

In short, I'm all for people that are well off to contribute in whatever manner they can and it seems like an increasingly lareg amount of people are doing just that, but I do not believe they are obliged to do so (until they are by legal means). 


Offline toshes mate

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5440
  • Vitam Impendere Vero
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2020, 09:34:27 AM »
I wonder what all the several contracts involved (sponsors with Sky etc; Sky etc with PL, EFL etc; clubs etc with players etc) have to say about 'unprecedented situations' if they have any clauses covering it at all?  Professional sports and entertainments may have to rethink the whole way finance is structured if these kind of disruptions are to occur more regularly which is, at the moment, a major uncertainty.

There's still a lot of water to go under the Covid-19 bridge and the ramifications will be far reaching.


Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 8952
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2020, 10:52:20 AM »
I agree that it seems bitterly unfair, and the hope is of course that players act responsibly and realizes that they can be part of the solution. However they are insulated in the same way that anyone with a valid employment contract is, meaning that as long as their employer is managing they will be safe. If a club goes bankrupt however then the players are also out of luck. Whether they opt, likely following discussions with the employer, to forego whole or parts of their salary for the time being that would seem like a decent thing to do.

On whether or not they have earned enough to live off for several years, that is another discussion altogether. Who would decide what is enough? Who has the authority to confiscate the money of the rich to give to the poor? Any such acts should of course come from legislative changes in my opinion.

In short, I'm all for people that are well off to contribute in whatever manner they can and it seems like an increasingly lareg amount of people are doing just that, but I do not believe they are obliged to do so (until they are by legal means). 

I didn't suggest anyone should "confiscate the money of the rich to give to the poor" and I'm not really sure why you've gone off on that tangent, to be honest. You seem to have a manufactured an argument with yourself.

For the record, the much, much narrower points I made, implied and/or would now make in response to your last post are -   

(1) There is clearly an amount one can roughly determine, which is enough for the basics a human needs to survive, such as food and shelter. In London, it's probably about £30k per year. Maybe more, maybe less, but certainly, to suggest it's an obscene amount like £800k pa (the average player's salary) or indeed, anything over say £50-60k (for an individual without dependants) is frankly ridiculous.

(2) FWIW I generally believe people should be free to earn amounts hugely in excess of £30k where their talent and effort merits it. I've generally no problem with inequality. But in the rare, exceptional circumstances of national desperation we're currently experiencing, a person's right to earn far more money than they need (which, to repeat, I'd ordinarily defend) may be deprioritised, in certain limited circumstances, IMO. That's not the same as saying anyone should have their money confiscated.
 
(3) I'm sure the club has the power to stop players' salaries, whether that's under their contract (under termination or even force majuere provisions) or simply be petitioning for its own winding-up.     
« Last Edit: March 31, 2020, 11:00:44 AM by Statto »

Offline Sting of the North

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1979
Re: Where would clubs stand ST wise....
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2020, 12:30:27 PM »
I agree that it seems bitterly unfair, and the hope is of course that players act responsibly and realizes that they can be part of the solution. However they are insulated in the same way that anyone with a valid employment contract is, meaning that as long as their employer is managing they will be safe. If a club goes bankrupt however then the players are also out of luck. Whether they opt, likely following discussions with the employer, to forego whole or parts of their salary for the time being that would seem like a decent thing to do.

On whether or not they have earned enough to live off for several years, that is another discussion altogether. Who would decide what is enough? Who has the authority to confiscate the money of the rich to give to the poor? Any such acts should of course come from legislative changes in my opinion.

In short, I'm all for people that are well off to contribute in whatever manner they can and it seems like an increasingly lareg amount of people are doing just that, but I do not believe they are obliged to do so (until they are by legal means). 

I didn't suggest anyone should "confiscate the money of the rich to give to the poor" and I'm not really sure why you've gone off on that tangent, to be honest. You seem to have a manufactured an argument with yourself.

For the record, the much, much narrower points I made, implied and/or would now make in response to your last post are -   

(1) There is clearly an amount one can roughly determine, which is enough for the basics a human needs to survive, such as food and shelter. In London, it's probably about £30k per year. Maybe more, maybe less, but certainly, to suggest it's an obscene amount like £800k pa (the average player's salary) or indeed, anything over say £50-60k (for an individual without dependants) is frankly ridiculous.

(2) FWIW I generally believe people should be free to earn amounts hugely in excess of £30k where their talent and effort merits it. I've generally no problem with inequality. But in the rare, exceptional circumstances of national desperation we're currently experiencing, a person's right to earn far more money than they need (which, to repeat, I'd ordinarily defend) should be deprioritised IMO. That's not the same as saying anyone should have their money confiscated.
 
(3) I'm sure the club has the power to stop players' salaries, whether that's under their contract (under termination or even force majuere provisions) or simply be petitioning for its own winding-up.   

I didn't mean to infer that you actually advocated that any money should be confiscated as I assumed that there was more to your line of reasoning than that. Sorry if it came about in an incorrect manner.

It is not however as simple as to say that "players pay should be completely stopped", which you suggested. If it is their contractual right, it is their money in principle after the contractual payment due date. Thus, if I questioned anything then it was that if payments should be completely stopped, on what grounds would that be? I mean, if the club has that power through contractual or other legal means (which you speculate about under '(3)' above) then it is a complete non-issue and it is up to the club to do what makes sense to them. If they don't, then it is not as easy as to just stop it solely because they are wealthy and again it is up to the players as well to do their part (or not).

I'm not sure we really disagree here, and I am not looking to start an argument. Just giving my input in the matter.

As to the amounts, no one suggested anything as far as I can see other than me suggesting that it is another discussion. I do believe the issue is much more complex than in your example, but I am under no illusion that the average player in FFC would be in financial troubles of any sort if they didn't get paid for a couple of months.

If your suggestion simply is that the players should take a voluntary pay cut then I agree completely that it would be a very decent thing to do under the circumstances.