Wigan in Administration

Looks like Wigan are the latest to get the financial cosh. I wonder if their 12 points will be next year. Poor buggers.  

Wigan Athletic have gone into administration, becoming the first English professional club to do so since the coronavirus pandemic began.

Wigan have been struggling to manage their finances and say there was no alternative if they were to safeguard the club.

The move may see the Championship side deducted points.

Paul Stanley, Gerald Krasner and Dean Watson of Begbies Traynor have been appointed as joint administrators.

Stanley said: "We understand that everybody connected with the club and the wider football world is seeking clarity on the future of Wigan Athletic.

"That's exactly what we are seeking to provide as we move through this process and we seek out interested parties to rescue this famous old club here in the region.

"It is a fast-moving situation and we will provide updates on key developments."

Krasner, former chairman of Leeds United and now a partner at Begbies Traynor, added: "Our immediate objectives are to ensure the club completes all its fixtures this season and to urgently find interested parties to save Wigan Athletic FC and the jobs of the people who work for the club.

"Obviously the suspension of the Championship season due to Covid-19 has had a significant impact on the recent fortunes of the club.

"Wigan Athletic has been a focal point and source of pride for the town since 1932 and anyone who is interested in buying this historic sporting institution should contact the joint administrators directly."

Until 2018, Wigan was owned by Dave Whelan, who steered the club from the fourth tier of English football to the Premier League.

The Latics also won the FA Cup in 2013.

Whelan sold the club to Hong Kong-based International Entertainment Corporation in November 2018.

Wigan have won all three of their league games since the resumption of the Championship season on 20 June.

Paul Cook's side beat Stoke 3-0 at the DW Stadium on Tuesday and are 14th in the table, eight points above the relegation zone.

The standard points deduction for an English Football League club entering administration is 12 points and, should that penalty be applied this season, it would drop them to the foot of the table, four points from safety with six matches left to play.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53247333

You’d like to laugh at them for laughing at us during our problems but this is too serious to take the Michael. This is serious because at least we knew who our enemy was, Latic fans don’t really have that benefit but yet again it asks serious questions about the EFLs fit and proper owners test. When is someone in authority going to take this organisation in hand and sort them out? I now fear for the future of the club as I just can’t see who will want to buy them as a going concern in the current environment. At least if there’s an asset sale we might get Euxton back cheap?

Whitesince63 wrote:You’d like to laugh at them for laughing at us during our problems but this is too serious to take the Michael. This is serious because at least we knew who our enemy was, Latic fans don’t really have that benefit but yet again it asks serious questions about the EFLs fit and proper owners test. When is someone in authority going to take this organisation in hand and sort them out? I now fear for the future of the club as I just can’t see who will want to buy them as a going concern in the current environment. At least if there’s an asset sale we might get Euxton back cheap?

You did make me smile yesterday when I read your recommendation in the Barrow newspaper comments section about them appointing Lee to their soon to be vacant managers job!

Are you his agent or something 63!



Seriously though Wigan and ourselves did have the same 'enemy' and that is/was running a business that was falling into insolvency.

The business is/was simply paying out more than it was brining in and couldn't continue to keep doing so.

It's as simple as that (even though most still prefer to believe it was Anderson who was the cause of all our woes).

As for the EFL they simply don't have the power (or were even set up to regulate over ownership) to know where, how or whom are behind buying the clubs and from where they get their money.

Even today for example, no one really knows for certain where Eddies offshore companies got their monies from or why it was based in the Virgin Isles!

All the EFL can do is to see that the owner is not currently a bankrupt or struck off director and that they have proof of funds to keep the club operational for its first two years of trading.

The EFL if you like is simply a private club to run a sport for its members and it is hard to deny membership and not face legal challenges if it blocks membership to a new club owner without well documented reasons to do so.

If the government has no problem with say the Saudi Royal family buying Newcastle then why should the EFL's equivalent, the PL have any issues either?

Eddie legitimately sold the club to Holdsworth (he had no money) and Anderson who had. Why would you think the EFL should have barred Anderson from ownership (when he had money) and allow Holdsworth (knowing he hadn't)?

If Eddie was happy with the deal and he sold the club to them, why would you think the EFL should in someway stop them having ownership of the club?

It's a can of worms mate and not as simple as people want to make out.

The EFL job is to do the best they can for their members (not the fans of those clubs) and to be fair until they lost Bury they had kept everybody else on board for what something like 20 years or so.

They simply aren't set up or designed to withstand major legal court cases against them.

To paraphrase Archimedes, Pies Are Scared.
And so they should be if they are in for an experience similar to ours.
Sluffy makes a fair point about the EFL's hands being tied/their function - which means the EFL isn't fit for purpose and should be scrapped and replaced with a body that is. And unless things change it will be an inevitability sooner or later.

Now it's Archimedes!!

boltonbonce wrote:Now it's Archimedes!!

We're on a roll....

wanderlust wrote:To paraphrase Archimedes, Pies Are Scared.
And so they should be if they are in for an experience similar to ours.
Sluffy makes a fair point about the EFL's hands being tied/their function - which means the EFL isn't fit for purpose and should be scrapped and replaced with a body that is. And unless things change it will be an inevitability sooner or later.

I would argue it has been fit for purpose and that it's purpose has never been much more than complying with existing legal requirements in respect of company ownership of the football teams it allows in and regulates in its leagues.

You really need a specialist business to attempt to uncover who owns such companies and where their money comes from and as the police and government have great trouble doing so themselves I would suggest it would be nigh on impossible (and certainly extremely expensive) for anyone to do so (or be commissioned to do so on the EFL's behalf).

Take for instance this one case alone and how much time and money it must have involved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51387364

I feel sorry for the club, but not for the supporters. Might teach them a bit of humility.

gloswhite wrote:I feel sorry for the club, but not for the supporters. Might teach them a bit of humility.

Yes i bet all 5 of them feel gutted tonight

Sluffy wrote:

I would argue it has been fit for purpose and that it's purpose has never been much more than complying with existing legal requirements in respect of company ownership of the football teams it allows in and regulates in its leagues.

You really need a specialist business to attempt to uncover who owns such companies and where their money comes from and as the police and government have great trouble doing so themselves  I would suggest it would be nigh on impossible (and certainly extremely expensive) for anyone to do so (or be commissioned to do so on the EFL's behalf).

Take for instance this one case alone and how much time and money it must have involved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51387364

I agree.
What I'm saying is the purpose it was set up for is not what is needed. The primary purpose should be to save the game just as one might save a failing business therefore I should have said the EFL is not fit for the revised purpose.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I would argue it has been fit for purpose and that it's purpose has never been much more than complying with existing legal requirements in respect of company ownership of the football teams it allows in and regulates in its leagues.

You really need a specialist business to attempt to uncover who owns such companies and where their money comes from and as the police and government have great trouble doing so themselves  I would suggest it would be nigh on impossible (and certainly extremely expensive) for anyone to do so (or be commissioned to do so on the EFL's behalf).

Take for instance this one case alone and how much time and money it must have involved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51387364

I agree.
What I'm saying is the purpose it was set up for is not what is needed. The primary purpose should be to save the game just as one might save a failing business therefore I should have said the EFL is not fit for the revised purpose.

You agree with me - that must be a first!

Unfortunately I still disagree with you again.

The EFL is really a private members club if you like and although it is the rule maker for the 'game' it isn't the rule maker as such as to how it is run - in theory all clubs have an equal vote (in their division at least).

The EFL has had to 'deal' with numerous clubs and their 'issues' - which range from teams 'buying' their leagues (spending huge sums to gain promotion) to clubs like ours that were to all intents and purposes insolvent.

They also have to administer and implement directives from football's world and European bodies.

All this is difficult enough to do if you had sole authority but you are dealing with clubs who have a say (and a vote) in how the league is run - and of course they have vested interests in achieving desired outcomes.

I'm of the opinion the EFL have pushed the envelope on numerous occasions to help clubs from going under - and enable them to complete the season - even when other clubs would wish them go to the wall so that they don't get relegated / or fill their promotion spot.

I've no doubt that Bolton has benefitted directly from this desire to keep ALL clubs going on more than one occasion (we should have been expelled in January 2019 when we were insolvent and couldn't pay for Doidge and others and again we should not have been allowed to start the season just ended because there was no guarantee that we wouldn't have fallen into liquidation).

Another example is the embargos that to me are kept quiet and are more tailor made to clubs and their circumstances rather than having 'book' rules to apply.

In other words the EFL operated a sort of wriggle room policy rather than a strict rule book in order to save numerous failing clubs/business, with Bury being the only one it could do nothing about (from what I've read about Bury's demise it looked that very corrupt practices had been going on between the owner and a related family member - all allegedly of course - I don't want to be sued!)

I think the EFL has received a torrent of undeserved abuse and all they've ever tried to do as far as I can see is simply to keep the club's going.

For instance and again in Bury's case iirc, the then owner ran into financial difficulty and sold the club mid season at short notice.  The new owner had not completed the FPP test so the EFL had two options - the book option was to reject the new owner and throw Bury AFC out of the league - and expunging their results for the season.  The option they chose was to accept the new ownership 'for now' and get the season finished, then worry about it then.

They got dogs abuse when it became known the owner had not been passed for FPP but would people had preferred it if they had of expelled Bury as rightly they should have?

They say that rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men (Douglas Bader) - I think the EFL have done their best by all their members and many more (us included) would have been thrown out of the league in the last decade or two if they were just focused on a strict interpretation of their rules.

Is that the sort of new body you want the EFL to be?

Sluffy wrote:

You agree with me - that must be a first!

Unfortunately I still disagree with you again.

The EFL is really a private members club if you like and although it is the rule maker for the 'game' it isn't the rule maker as such as to how it is run - in theory all clubs have an equal vote (in their division at least).

The EFL has had to 'deal' with numerous clubs and their 'issues' - which range from teams 'buying' their leagues (spending huge sums to gain promotion) to clubs like ours that were to all intents and purposes insolvent.

They also have to administer and implement directives from football's world and European bodies.

All this is difficult enough to do if you had sole authority but you are dealing with clubs who have a say (and a vote) in how the league is run - and of course they have vested interests in achieving desired outcomes.

I'm of the opinion the EFL have pushed the envelope on numerous occasions to help clubs from going under - and enable them to complete the season - even when other clubs would wish them go to the wall so that they don't get relegated / or fill their promotion spot.

I've no doubt that Bolton has benefitted directly from this desire to keep ALL clubs going on more than one occasion (we should have been expelled in January 2019 when we were insolvent and couldn't pay for Doidge and others and again we should not have been allowed to start the season just ended because there was no guarantee that we wouldn't have fallen into liquidation).

Another example is the embargos that to me are kept quiet and are more tailor made to clubs and their circumstances rather than having 'book' rules to apply.

In other words the EFL operated a sort of wriggle room policy rather than a strict rule book in order to save numerous failing clubs/business, with Bury being the only one it could do nothing about (from what I've read about Bury's demise it looked that very corrupt practices had been going on between the owner and a related family member - all allegedly of course - I don't want to be sued!)

I think the EFL has received a torrent of undeserved abuse and all they've ever tried to do as far as I can see is simply to keep the club's going.

For instance and again in Bury's case iirc, the then owner ran into financial difficulty and sold the club mid season at short notice.  The new owner had not completed the FPP test so the EFL had two options - the book option was to reject the new owner and throw Bury AFC out of the league - and expunging their results for the season.  The option they chose was to accept the new ownership 'for now' and get the season finished, then worry about it then.

They got dogs abuse when it became known the owner had not been passed for FPP but would people had preferred it if they had of expelled Bury as rightly they should have?

They say that rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men (Douglas Bader) - I think the EFL have done their best by all their members and many more (us included) would have been thrown out of the league in the last decade or two if they were just focused on a strict interpretation of their rules.

Is that the sort of new body you want the EFL to be?

No. I have more imagination.

I worked in Wigan for most of my working life, most of my friends are Wiganers, no one should want to see a football club go under and that's my position, however i went on the Wigan Forum at the height of our misery some held my position most enjoyed seeing us brought down to our knees, and some thought we were the scum of the earth and cheating our way through the courts and saw great pleasure in buying our training ground, so to those this is pay back time.

They have a petition going trying to overturn the 12 points on the grounds that the EFL failed in the fit and proper test, that sounds familiar especially when the head of the EFL gave a glowing reference to Anderson at the time, Some Wigan fans thought that we should have been docked more points how ironic.

I think Sluffy sums up the role well, and when it comes to that point in court when you either get a new owner or your liquidated the truth is at that point te fans would settle for the Kray brothers and worry about it later.

Hi Sluffy, no not DL’s agent but it’s no secret I wanted him to take over here. I’ve no problem with Ian Evatt, quite the opposite, I’m delighted with his appointment but feel DL has the same positive outlook and beliefs as IE just not the managerial experience and could possibly have delivered the same outcome. Anyway it’s Ian Evatt but I actually hope DL gets his desire in management and Barrow could be a good start for him.

As for the EFL, you’re absolutely right in what you say and I don’t underestimate the difficulty in vetting owners, though in Anderson’s case he had previous and should have been subject to greater scrutiny. You are though right about the lengths of their control as they are as you say just custodians of a members club and don’t have total authority. You’re also right about the fact that the majority of clubs would not survive under normal business rules and are basically insolvent but they have done a poor job in my view in ensuring a fair division of revenues within football generally. Let’s be honest here, the PL was created through the greed of the big clubs and has effectively destroyed football as we knew it in this country. Owners now buy football clubs to potentially share in those riches and are often forced into spending unsustainable amounts to get there. This attracts corrupt and devious owners like ours and Wigan’s even further down the chain and until we get back to a sustainable situation for all clubs from a fairer share out of the spoils that won’t happen. I fear for Wigan’s future as I fear for many other clubs and not just L1 and L2 either. With the current state of football and CV restrictions I can’t see how many other clubs won’t fold either. Football is in a dire straight and somebody needs to first accept it and second do something about it.

Whitesince63 wrote:Hi Sluffy, no not DL’s agent but it’s no secret I wanted him to take over here. I’ve no problem with Ian Evatt, quite the opposite, I’m delighted with his appointment but feel DL has the same positive outlook and beliefs as IE just not the managerial experience and could possibly have delivered the same outcome. Anyway it’s Ian Evatt but I actually hope DL gets his desire in management and Barrow could be a good start for him.

As for the EFL, you’re absolutely right in what you say and I don’t underestimate the difficulty in vetting owners, though in Anderson’s case he had previous and should have been subject to greater scrutiny. You are though right about the lengths of their control as they are as you say just custodians of a members club and don’t have total authority. You’re also right about the fact that the majority of clubs would not survive under normal business rules and are basically insolvent but they have done a poor job in my view in ensuring a fair division of revenues within football generally. Let’s be honest here, the PL was created through the greed of the big clubs and has effectively destroyed football as we knew it in this country. Owners now buy football clubs to potentially share in those riches and are often forced into spending unsustainable amounts to get there. This attracts corrupt and devious owners like ours and Wigan’s even further down the chain and until we get back to a sustainable situation for all clubs from a fairer share out of the spoils that won’t happen. I fear for Wigan’s future as I fear for many other clubs and not just L1 and L2 either. With the current state of football and CV restrictions I can’t see how many other clubs won’t fold either. Football is in a dire straight and somebody needs to first accept it and second do something about it.

Thanks 63 but I really don't think Lee will be in management at Barrow or anywhere else at a decent standard, anytime soon, if at all.

I've nothing against the man but he's chosen to stick almost exclusively with one club for the whole of his coaching career (I believe he was with Coyle at Wigan for a season or so) so severely limiting his experience of different systems and thinking and even overlooked (correctly imo)) by the club he's been loyal to, who even went out of their way to pay compensation to another club for their manager (who remember has never managed in the EFL before (I think he might have been a caretaker for a game or so somewhere though iirc), when they could have had Lee for free!  What message does that send to other clubs about his potential ability to step up by the people who know him the best?

I don't even think Lee has even any experience of man management of senior players, I think his coaching career has been exclusively with U23's and below.  I doubt he's any experience of scouting and identifying first team players and negotiating with agents and other clubs nor had much if anything to do with convincing players to sign for BWFC instead of any rival clubs.

I know Phoenix may well do some/much of the latter elements for us now(?) but most other clubs he will be applying to for the managers job will expect the successful person to do such stuff.

Take away the 'emotional' view of Lee and look at him dispassionately as to whether on what he's done to date would put him head and shoulders in front of others who will be applying for the same jobs and I would strongly suggest it would not.

Lee is probably aiming at Bamber Bridge type club level, where he can try to prove himself and work his way up the leagues - but in all honestly he's already years behind younger men like Evatt and the coronavirus might put a multitude of tiny clubs out of business and thus reducing more his chances.

At the end of a day - and the crucial point most fans miss - football is a business and business (unless they are the owners pet projects and deep pockets) aren't run on sentiment.

Forgive me as I need to correct you on another misconception that you and a large number of others seem to believe and that is in respect of the Premier League.

In simple terms just like the EFL, the PL is a 'members' club in the way I explained in my previous post above.

The club is 'owned' if you will by its 20 members and these members 'vote' to decide 'things'.

The PL and EFL are SEPERATE to each other and not 'linked' as I think many believe.

The PL is a registered company -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02719699

Thus all the vast revenue that is paid by Sky and the rest to broadcast the games goes to the Premier League and is shown in their accounts -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02719699/filing-history

It is entirely up to their 20 'shareholders' to decide where the money is allocated or where it gets spent.

There is no OBLIGATION as far as I'm aware to pay the EFL clubs anything but of course they do - but in reality only a very small percentage of what the PL's turnover is.

They are under NO requirement to pass on anything other than what they vote for to the EFL - and again as I mentioned above in respect of the EFL, their members/shareholders have their own self interests to think about - and don't forget they are 'companies' themselves, many with multi-million pound turnovers who depend on the broadcast revenue to keep themselves solvent - hence the 'forced' reason why PL games are now being played again during the ongoing pandemic because some of the clubs faced major financial problems if they had to return the Sky money in respect of any games they may have had to 'cancel' that they had already been paid in advance for (estimated to be in the billions if the season had been stopped like ours was.

You may find the following link of interest that outlines West Ham's precarious financial position position BEFORE coronavirus struck! -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53215371

So I'm afraid there is no such thing as "a fairer share out" as you put it of the billions the PL receive for broadcasting rights because the money belongs to the 20 Premier League clubs and NOT to football teams outside of those clubs.

I also disagree about your view on "corrupt and devious owners" and Ken Anderson but you are totally correct when you say football has been ruined since clubs, players, agents, managers, owners, etc become excessively greedier since the breakaway of the PL and the inflow of Sky money to it thereafter.

Sluffy wrote:

Thanks 63 but I really don't think Lee will be in management at Barrow or anywhere else at a decent standard, anytime soon, if at all.

I've nothing against the man but he's chosen to stick almost exclusively with one club for the whole of his coaching career (I believe he was with Coyle at Wigan for a season or so) so severely limiting his experience of different systems and thinking and even overlooked (correctly imo)) by the club he's been loyal to, who even went out of their way to pay compensation to another club for their manager (who remember has never managed in the EFL before (I think he might have been a caretaker for a game or so somewhere though iirc), when they could have had Lee for free!  What message does that send to other clubs about his potential ability to step up by the people who know him the best?

I don't even think Lee has even any experience of man management of senior players, I think his coaching career has been exclusively with U23's and below.  I doubt he's any experience of scouting and identifying first team players and negotiating with agents and other clubs nor had much if anything to do with convincing players to sign for BWFC instead of any rival clubs.

I know Phoenix may well do some/much of the latter elements for us now(?) but most other clubs he will be applying to for the managers job will expect the successful person to do such stuff.

Take away the 'emotional' view of Lee and look at him dispassionately as to whether on what he's done to date would put him head and shoulders in front of others who will be applying for the same jobs and I would strongly suggest it would not.

Lee is probably aiming at Bamber Bridge type club level, where he can try to prove himself and work his way up the leagues - but in all honestly he's already years behind younger men like Evatt and the coronavirus might put a multitude of tiny clubs out of business and thus reducing more his chances.

At the end of a day - and the crucial point most fans miss - football is a business and business (unless they are the owners pet projects and deep pockets) aren't run on sentiment.

Forgive me as I need to correct you on another misconception that you and a large number of others seem to believe and that is in respect of the Premier League.

In simple terms just like the EFL, the PL is a 'members' club in the way I explained in my previous post above.

The club is 'owned' if you will by its 20 members and these members 'vote' to decide 'things'.

The PL and EFL are SEPERATE to each other and not 'linked' as I think many believe.

The PL is a registered company -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02719699

Thus all the vast revenue that is paid by Sky and the rest to broadcast the games goes to the Premier League and is shown in their accounts -

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02719699/filing-history

It is entirely up to their 20 'shareholders' to decide where the money is allocated or where it gets spent.

There is no OBLIGATION as far as I'm aware to pay the EFL clubs anything but of course they do - but in reality only a very small percentage of what the PL's turnover is.

They are under NO requirement to pass on anything other than what they vote for to the EFL - and again as I mentioned above in respect of the EFL, their members/shareholders have their own self interests to thing about - and don't forget they are 'companies' themselves, many with multi-million pound turnovers who depend on the broadcast revenue to keep themselves solvent - hence the 'forced' reason why PL games are now being played again during the ongoing pandemic because some of the clubs faced major financial problems if they had to return the Sky money in respect of any games they may have had to 'cancel' that they had already been paid in advance for (estimated to be in the billions if the season had been stopped like ours was.

You may find the following link of interest that outlines West Ham's precarious financial position position BEFORE coronavirus struck! -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53215371

So I'm afraid there is no such thing as "a fairer share out" as you put it of the billions the PL receive for broadcasting rights because the money belongs to the 20 Premier League clubs and NOT to football teams outside of those clubs.

I also disagree about your view on "corrupt and devious owners" and Ken Anderson but you are totally correct when you say football has been ruined since clubs, players, agents, managers, owners, etc become excessively greedier since the breakaway of the PL and the inflow of Sky money to it thereafter.

It takes a brilliant administrator to run a league equitably.  It takes the confidence of the owners to support that administrator.  Across the pond, we have major league baseball, where the clubs have their own television deals in addition to network deals.  In addition, owners have formed their own cable networks and own club and local television. Hence, a large city can command huge deals.  In American football, a brilliant PR man named Pete Rozelle, became commissioner as a compromise among owners on the 23rd ballot.  He then proceeded to nationalize all television rights into one contract that the league controlled... with all member clubs sharing equally... in contrast to major league baseball.  At the same time, football purchased what would become NFL Films, with exclusive rights to all footage.  The teams therefore benefited together.   As time went on, each league went down their own paths, and the price tag of teams became astronomical, further enriching the owners.  Were there con artists among the owners?  Of course... but the power of the Commissioners enabled them to suspend or expel owners... even forcing sales.    Covid has become the great equalizer of the century.  If a club is on the brink of the abyss, should the rest of the league pony up to support the club in trouble?  Across the Atlantic, that has happened many times... but of course, we don't have relegation with other teams anxious to take the leap to the PL.  Most owners have learned to support the Commissioner of their respective leagues... and the Commissioners have learned how to tame the owners with huge fines, suspensions and loss of draft picks.  So, you need equilibrium between teams and owners to keep these leagues going.  Either scenario of owning the local rights or pooling the television rights seems to work... albeit better for the larger city teams when you control your own destiny.  Then again, no one is complaining about the monies they earn from television.  Covid may be the great equalizer... and let's hope everyone wears masks so we can shorten the time we are all in peril.

observer wrote:It takes a brilliant administrator to run a league equitably.  It takes the confidence of the owners to support that administrator.  Across the pond, we have major league baseball, where the clubs have their own television deals in addition to network deals.  In addition, owners have formed their own cable networks and own club and local television. Hence, a large city can command huge deals.  In American football, a brilliant PR man named Pete Rozelle, became commissioner as a compromise among owners on the 23rd ballot.  He then proceeded to nationalize all television rights into one contract that the league controlled... with all member clubs sharing equally... in contrast to major league baseball.  At the same time, football purchased what would become NFL Films, with exclusive rights to all footage.  The teams therefore benefited together.   As time went on, each league went down their own paths, and the price tag of teams became astronomical, further enriching the owners.  Were there con artists among the owners?  Of course... but the power of the Commissioners enabled them to suspend or expel owners... even forcing sales.    Covid has become the great equalizer of the century.  If a club is on the brink of the abyss, should the rest of the league pony up to support the club in trouble?  Across the Atlantic, that has happened many times... but of course, we don't have relegation with other teams anxious to take the leap to the PL.  Most owners have learned to support the Commissioner of their respective leagues... and the Commissioners have learned how to tame the owners with huge fines, suspensions and loss of draft picks.  So, you need equilibrium between teams and owners to keep these leagues going.  Either scenario of owning the local rights or pooling the television rights seems to work... albeit better for the larger city teams when you control your own destiny.  Then again, no one is complaining about the monies they earn from television.  Covid may be the great equalizer... and let's hope everyone wears masks so we can shorten the time we are all in peril.

Thanks for that Obs, very informative.

You can't really compare it to our situation though because we don't have a Commissioner/Administrator with such powers over the clubs and of course promotion to and relegation from the PL happens by being 'fed' by the perceived (and actual) subservient and separate of the PL - and more to the point no direct and independent access to the vast amount of money the PL receives in their own right from broadcasting deals.

There seems to be a misconception over here from many fans that the PL SHOULD be paying/donating substantially more to the EFL (and thus be distributed to the EFL clubs such as we currently are) that the amount they do but there is no legal reason why they should do and what they do give reduces the pot of money from what they could receive themselves - so there really is no incentive for them to do so.

People can't seem to grasp that there is no longer 92 clubs in the league as there used to be but in fact only now 72 (Barrow now having been confirmed as taking Bury's place).

The other 20 clubs have broken away completely from the 72 and have set up their own league and 'own' all the money that league makes.

They are as indifferent to the EFL its teams and its supporters, as in turn the EFL is indifferent to the Conference/non league, its teams and their supporters.

Bolton fans don't expect BWFC or the EFL to contribute to the funding or bailing out of non league clubs anymore than the PL, its 20 teams and their fans would expect to fund and bail out clubs in the EFL such as Bury who went bust, ourselves who nearly did and Wigan who currently look as though they might.

I think many people simply believe the Sky money is for ALL the 92 clubs and we simply are not receiving a big enough share of the money. The reality is the Sky money to broadcast PL games are for just the 20 PL clubs themselves and they don't have to pay the EFL anything at all!

Also stay safe yourself obs.

Sluffy wrote:

Thanks for that Obs, very informative.

You can't really compare it to our situation though because we don't have a Commissioner/Administrator with such powers over the clubs and of course promotion to and relegation from the PL happens by being 'fed' by the perceived (and actual) subservient and separate of the PL - and more to the point no direct and independent access to the vast amount of money the PL receives in their own right from broadcasting deals.

There seems to be a misconception over here from many fans that the PL SHOULD be paying/donating substantially more to the EFL (and thus be distributed to the EFL clubs such as we currently are) that the amount they do but there is no legal reason why they should do and what they do give reduces the pot of money from what they could receive themselves - so there really is no incentive for them to do so.

People can't seem to grasp that there is no longer 92 clubs in the league as there used to be but in fact only now 72 (Barrow now having been confirmed as taking Bury's place).

The other 20 clubs have broken away completely from the 72 and have set up their own league and 'own' all the money that league makes.  

They are as indifferent to the EFL its teams and its supporters, as in turn the EFL is indifferent to the Conference/non league, its teams and their supporters.

Bolton fans don't expect BWFC or the EFL to contribute to the funding or bailing out of non league clubs anymore than the PL, its 20 teams and their fans would expect to fund and bail out clubs in the EFL such as Bury who went bust, ourselves who nearly did and Wigan who currently look as though they might.

I think many people simply believe the Sky money is for ALL the 92 clubs and we simply are not receiving a big enough share of the money.  The reality is the Sky money to broadcast PL games are for just the 20 PL clubs themselves and they don't have to pay the EFL anything at all!

Also stay safe yourself obs.

Franchise/licensing systems do seem to provide more stability than the "country club" EFL model we have here, as does the German system. Both are models that we could learn from, even cherry pick the best bits from - but unfortunately for us, vested interest stands in the way of progress yet again.

A bit of conspiracy theory for us over Wigan -

@reluctantnicko you seen this? pic.twitter.com/jURmqvXCvX

— Kieffer Moore for Ballon dor (@MooreSZN19) July 2, 2020

Rick Parry discusses rumour linking Wigan administration to 'a bet in the Philippines'

Wigan Athletic were placed into administration on Thursday, and EFL chairman Rick Parry has been filmed discussing the circumstances surrounding the measures with a Latics fan

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rick-parry-discusses-rumour-linking-22294587

While Parry cannot be seen in the clip, the EFL have acknowledged that the conversation took place.

“The EFL is aware of a video of its chairman posted on social media this evening that discusses recent developments at Wigan Athletic," the statement read.