[Albion] Email Update from Paul Barber

[Farehamseagull]

Sobering. I think we can safely assume there rightly won’t be any more expensive signings this year.

 

[Easy 10]

Watching the performances so far this season, both league and cup do you think we are performing better without the fans? We seem to be playing without any fear at the moment.

I've seen and replied to this point on another thread, and I agree. The element of anxiousness that filters from the stands when we pass it round the back is now absent. The players look relaxed and less pressured. Alzate ballsed it up against Chelsea of course, and he'll know that, but he at least avoided the groans (he'd never have been boo'd, mind).

 

[Pondicherry]

I certainly agree with the principal. But the BILLIONS the PL draws in from broadcasting rights from here and all over the world dictates that the stars of this massively successful "product" will receive an extremely large chunk of it.

Tom Cruise earned about $75m for Mission Impossible: Fallout. It was a worldwide box office smash. Now you may or may not think he was worth that kind of wedge from that particular movie, but thats what his worldwide pulling power brought in for Paramount Studios, hence his sizeable reward. You don't see anyone saying that he should share a chunk of that with the cast of Emmerdale and Mrs Brown's Boys, do you.

I agree and I appreciate its market forces, supply and demand etc. However, Tom Cruise's manager has not e-mailed me recently saying Tom's finances are a bit tight.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What’s your view on students and the new restricted student environment H? Is it unfair on them or ok for a year?

I posted at Barberesque length (but without his lack of focus and relevance) on the main Covid thread about this earlier today.

The three sentence version is that I think it is bonkers for students other than medics, nurses and anyone else who needs to do face to face training to be on campus as most training can be done using Teams. The students will be fine, yet they will probably spend most of their time in halls and digs with lectures on Teams they could have watched from home. Despite this they will not suffer academically in the long term; we are all in the same boat.

Alright, you could have guessed I'd not stop after 3 sentences....what I'd do is bring all the students back but tell all staff over 55 (or 60 - up for debate) to stay at home. We could have run things close to 'normal'. Yes the virus would spread (it will anyway now) but it isn't much more dangerous to the young than flu.

I'd match this with proper shielding for the over 60s. Total cost, a fraction of what we are haemorrhaging now.

Instead we have half-arsed soppy-bollocks plans that fail at every level, neither allowing normality for the majority nor protection for the vulnerable.

HG junior will be fine, though

 

[doogie004]

Meanwhile in the real world I’m About to lose my business
Both my wife and myself both looking for jobs at 50+
My son and his partner both lost there jobs having just payed there first instalment on a 30 year mortgage. But you carry on mr barber about how tough it is for you and over payed footballers !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Easy 10]

I agree and I appreciate its market forces, supply and demand etc. However, Tom Cruise's manager has not e-mailed me recently saying Tom's finances are a bit tight.

Best rent one of his films from Netflix though, just to be sure.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I posted at Barberesque length (but without his lack of focus and relevance) on the main Covid thread about this earlier today.

The three sentence version is that I think it is bonkers for students other than medics, nurses and anyone else who needs to do face to face training to be on campus as most training can be done using Teams. The students will be fine, yet they will probably spend most of their time in halls and digs with lectures on Teams they could have watched from home. Despite this they will not suffer academically in the long term; we are all in the same boat.

Alright, you could have guessed I'd not stop after 3 sentences....what I'd do is bring all the students back but tell all staff over 55 (or 60 - up for debate) to stay at home. We could have run things close to 'normal'. Yes the virus would spread (it will anyway now) but it isn't much more dangerous to the young than flu.

I'd match this with proper shielding for the over 60s. Total cost, a fraction of what we are haemorrhaging now.

Instead we have half-arsed soppy-bollocks plans that fail at every level, neither allowing normality for the majority nor protection for the vulnerable.

HG junior will be fine, though

Great insight as ever. And agree with the approach to protectIng staff. Will check out your Covid thread version

 

[portlock seagull]

Meanwhile in the real world I’m About to lose my business
Both my wife and myself both looking for jobs at 50+
My son and his partner both lost there jobs having just payed there first instalment on a 30 year mortgage. But you carry on mr barber about how tough it is for you and over payed footballers !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. Up and down the land.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I agree and I appreciate its market forces, supply and demand etc. However, Tom Cruise's manager has not e-mailed me recently saying Tom's finances are a bit tight.

I got en email saying he’s a bit short

 

[vagabond]

Our overall income for season 2018/19 was around £144m (with TV broadcasting accounting for the lions share of that, obvs). About £18m of that was matchday income, or about 12%. Assuming these figures haven't altered drastically, I would hope we could absorb a 12% drop in income, particularly when you consider what that drop would be if we got relegated.

I'm not making light of this BTW, I appreciate the club has made losses overall even in the PL. But its worth having some perspective on what impact losing matchday income actually has on a PL club - a 12% hit ts manageable all the time we are getting TV money in. I've seen and taken part in idle speculation over theories that with the scale of TV money these days, clubs in the PL could afford to play in front of empty stadiums with no fans present. Unpalletable as we now know that is, this crisis is kind of proving the point.

This obviously does not apply to EFL clubs.

This was my understanding too.

So correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the television money vastly exceeds whatever matcha revenue we get. With that being the case, how could playing matches without fans cause significant financial difficulties?

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

One average PL player's wages for one week would pay a Div 1/2 player's wages for a year. Now is the time for this to happen and all of the football pyramid to survive.


TNBA

TTF

 

[Bozza]

So correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the television money vastly exceeds whatever matcha revenue we get. With that being the case, how could playing matches without fans cause significant financial difficulties?

The 2018/19 accounts have the following revenue lines:

Matchday 18,537
Broadcasting 113,492
Commercial 9,644
Other income 1,724

So, matchday income is c£1m per league game, give or take - that went for part of last season (five fixtures) and could possibly go for all of this season.

It's hard to imagine that commercial income hasn't suffered, possibly to quite a large degree too.

Finally PL clubs owe a rebate to broadcasters for last season.

So although broadcasting revenue is a large chunk of what the club brings in, there's still likely to be a big hole blown in its originally-budgeted finances.

 

[Weststander]

The 2018/19 accounts have the following revenue lines:

Matchday 18,537
Broadcasting 113,492
Commercial 9,644
Other income 1,724

So, matchday income is c£1m per league game, give or take - that went for part of last season (five fixtures) and could possibly go for all of this season.

It's hard to imagine that commercial income hasn't suffered, possibly to quite a large degree too.

Finally PL clubs owe a rebate to broadcasters for last season.

So although broadcasting revenue is a large chunk of what the club brings in, there's still likely to be a big hole blown in its originally-budgeted finances.

That one-off 2019/20 rebate to Sky, being repaid this season is £8.5m per club. After being heavily negotiated downwards.

Not sure if BT Sport are also getting a rebate?

 

[Easy 10]

This was my understanding too.

So correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the television money vastly exceeds whatever matcha revenue we get. With that being the case, how could playing matches without fans cause significant financial difficulties?

Indeed. If our financial "hit" is about 12% when we're packing in 30k+ every game, then what about your tinpots like Burnley and Palace, who have to get by in run-down slum stadiums on much smaller crowds, with far less corporate bang for their buck on a matchday ? Playing without crowds must make a negligible difference for the likes of them, they are almost entirely reliant on the TV dosh as opposed to bums on seats. What Palace save on policing for their tragic gaggle of drooling slack-jawed black clad muppets probably makes up most of the difference anyway.

 

[Klaas]

Our overall income for season 2018/19 was around £144m (with TV broadcasting accounting for the lions share of that, obvs). About £18m of that was matchday income, or about 12%. Assuming these figures haven't altered drastically, I would hope we could absorb a 12% drop in income, particularly when you consider what that drop would be if we got relegated.

I'm not making light of this BTW, I appreciate the club has made losses overall even in the PL. But its worth having some perspective on what impact losing matchday income actually has on a PL club - a 12% hit ts manageable all the time we are getting TV money in. I've seen and taken part in idle speculation over theories that with the scale of TV money these days, clubs in the PL could afford to play in front of empty stadiums with no fans present. Unpalletable as we now know that is, this crisis is kind of proving the point.

This obviously does not apply to EFL clubs.

Someone always has to bring Brexit into it.

 

[middletoenail]

Everyone seems to be missing a key point. It is quite possible that Sir Tony is haemorrhaging money in his other businesses and if that's the case, we could be in for a rough ride over the next few years.

That said, the way he has acted during the pandemic (full pay for staff, no redundancies etc) leads me to the suspicion that he has serious wedge!

 

[Seasider78]

That one-off 2019/20 rebate to Sky, being repaid this season is £8.5m per club. After being heavily negotiated downwards.

Not sure if BT Sport are also getting a rebate?

It’s amazing to think they are getting a rebate when they now have access to televising nearly double the amount of games.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Everyone seems to be missing a key point. It is quite possible that Sir Tony is haemorrhaging money in his other businesses and if that's the case, we could be in for a rough ride over the next few years.

That said, the way he has acted during the pandemic (full pay for staff, no redundancies etc) leads me to the suspicion that he has serious wedge!

This is the concern.

We may have no cash from Tony this summer to top up our income so have just our club income in the coffers.

Season ticket debits have stopped after 50% of the cost has been paid. Albion lose £1 million for every game that is played behind closed doors.

If the games are played behind closed doors on schedule there should be no TV money rebate this year but last year's refunds to sky, bt and overseas tv still has to be paid.


There should still be some money available but no £28million-for-Watkins type fees will be paid. Selling, for example, a player like Bernardo for a few million could really help.

 

[El Presidente]

This was my understanding too.

So correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the television money vastly exceeds whatever matcha revenue we get. With that being the case, how could playing matches without fans cause significant financial difficulties?

The Albion lost £20m in 2018/19 and were budgeting to lose the same last season pre-COVID-19.

The loss of Matchday income will take those losses this season to about £38 million. On top of that Premier League has cancelled the Chinese TV deal worth £175m a year due to non-payment from the broadcaster, replacing it with one that generates just £25 million. This will be about £8m a year per club. There are also rebates due to other broadcasters.

Lewis Dunk and Ben White have had pay rises, which is likely to offset the savings made on loaning out Glenn Murray and Shane Duffy.

Realistically losses for the Albion this season will be in the region of £45-50 million. Tony Bloom’s business interests may have been hit by COVID-19 too, which will make it tougher for him to subsidise the club the amazing way he has done over the past decade and more.

 

[El Presidente]

Indeed. If our financial "hit" is about 12% when we're packing in 30k+ every game, then what about your tinpots like Burnley and Palace, who have to get by in run-down slum stadiums on much smaller crowds, with far less corporate bang for their buck on a matchday ? Playing without crowds must make a negligible difference for the likes of them, they are almost entirely reliant on the TV dosh as opposed to bums on seats. What Palace save on policing for their tragic gaggle of drooling slack-jawed black clad muppets probably makes up most of the difference anyway.

These are the figures a DULLARD supplied to The Times earlier this week.