Inside the Premier League’s coronavirus meeting
By Laurie Whitwell and David Ornstein Mar 21, 2020
As representatives from all 20 Premier League clubs dialled into Thursday’s conference call hosted at the Brunel Building in Paddington, London, the agenda was clear: reassess the postponement to English football in alignment with the growing coronavirus pandemic.
None of the executives could see each other, rather the list of names ‘present’ at Premier League headquarters appeared on each person’s computer screen across the country, but that did not inhibit a robust dialogue about a number of issues that the current crisis has caused.
For those who went armed with a suspicion the meeting could become embroiled in partisanship there was instead a welcome sense of unity and when Claudia Arney, the Premier League’s interim chair, brought the discussion to a close, a further suspension of matches to April 30 and a firm intention to complete the 2019-20 season had been unanimously agreed.
There were though other matters on the table and by gaining an insight into the subject and tone of those conversations, The Athletic can now address some of the questions many supporters have about how — and when — football might be able to crank back into action.
How realistic is it that English football will resume on April 30?
Sources say there was an acceptance in the room that the date announced would “probably not” see a return of Premier League action, but a line had to be drawn to provide some kind of structure for clubs.
April 30 is far enough in the future whereby a semblance of planning can take place. “You can now give players a set three weeks off,” said one executive. “If you push it back a week at a time everyone is in no-man’s land.
“Equally, there is no point making the date too far off — say May 30 — and then it turns out we could play games earlier, as bleak as the situation looks right now.”
Another director was left with the impression the Premier League would do “everything they can” to get football back on by the end of May, even if that meant going behind closed doors — although curiously the issue of playing in empty stadiums was not specifically discussed. A number of clubs privately accept that in these unprecedented times, drastic measures are required.
What would this delay mean for the start of next season?
While such particulars will only be ascertained once the full effect of coronavirus is known, it has been speculated among decision-makers that as far as fitness is concerned players might only require a fortnight break in between campaigns due to the inevitable long hiatus now, rather than the customary six weeks in summer.
People would then simply have to come to terms more quickly with however their seasons finished — good or bad — and the only real issue would relate to the transfer market, and whether clubs could accept a truncated window in which to do business.
Was the summer window discussed on Thursday?
It was, because a number of executives are aware of particular cases that could get messy without clarification. Players often have contract extensions that need to be activated by a certain date, the middle of May usually, but some clubs would be unable to hit the button without knowing what division they might be in and what budget they might have.
This three-week period before the next meeting will allow for discussions to be had on such details. In the meeting one suggestion was that dates in contracts could be pushed back to correlate with the postponement of the football calendar, as long as the Professional Footballers’ Association concurred.
“Everyone accepts there needs to be a common-sense approach,” said a source. “We could in effect rewrite contracts so May becomes June, or July becomes August. It would need all parties to agree of course. But it felt like everyone was on the same page. We are all going to be affected one way or another, so as long as new rules don’t advantage anyone, I think people will be sensible.”
Could we yet see the campaign declared null and void?
During the conference call there was a collective, concerted message that the 2019-20 season had to be finished.
Ed Woodward, Manchester United’s executive vice-chairman, was among the most strident on this point. Described as being “very fair” in his wider input, Woodward was nevertheless firm in saying that even if the season had to run into September or October, that should be the course of action. There was no hint of trying to deny Liverpool a first title in 30 years, as might mischievously be proposed by some.
Uniting all those dialling in was the prospect of a massive financial penalty for failing to complete the season. As The Athletic revealed on Friday, executives were told that broadcasters such as Sky and BT Sport could demand a total of £762 million be returned if the campaign was curtailed, to cover the games still due to be shown on TV. It would be considered breach of contract.
There would be the prospect of negotiation on that figure, sources argue, given the Premier League’s importance to both channels — but it remains enough of a concern to bring a common consensus.
“There was a togetherness that we need to sort this out,” said a source. “Finance was the big motivator.”
This is not about greed, however. “Ultimately, we’re just businesses that make tiny profits,” said one Premier League executive. “If the cashflow dries up we’re no different to hotel groups or anything else. If we don’t put on the show we don’t get paid. If we don’t finish the season it’s a massive, massive problem.
“It’s not just the TV money — after that the sponsors won’t pay you because they’re not on TV and you’ll also miss out on gate money, which is £5 million to £6 million per game for some clubs.”
Another club director said: “Losing money like that doesn’t just affect the first-team players, it affects the receptionist, the canteen staff. These are the people who possibly face redundancies. Sub-contractors, pie sellers, people who rely on the club for their businesses. They are the first cutbacks when you don’t have the income arriving.
“If somebody asked me to take a pay cut in these circumstances, I’d do it tomorrow. If it meant keeping me and other people in jobs, why wouldn’t you?
“What people need to realise with big clubs is they also have big expenditure — you’re not talking hundreds of thousands but hundreds of millions. It could have catastrophic effects.”
Did any clubs offer an alternative opinion?
Karren Brady, West Ham United’s chief executive, and Paul Barber, the equivalent for Brighton & Hove Albion, were said to express a note of caution on the realities of finishing the season, given the scale of the crisis is not yet known.
If, for example, humanitarian reasons mean football cannot be resumed until July or later, the prospect of completing the remaining nine rounds of fixtures and starting a new season in a suitable manner would come into doubt.
Brady has written in her Sun newspaper column that in the event of a curtailment the “only fair and reasonable thing to do is declare the whole season null and void” but that would invite legal challenges from clubs in the Championship chasing promotion, notably Leeds United and West Bromwich Albion.
There was no talk of league positions during the call — with “egos parked at the door” — but it is clear that any attempt to relegate the clubs currently in the drop zone, as some observers have proposed, would automatically bring court cases from Norwich City, Aston Villa (who have a game in hand), and Bournemouth.
Was it all about money?
No. It was also touched on how clubs have a responsibility to fans and communities in these difficult times. “Football is a release,” said a source. “People will be getting bored and going stir crazy. Broadcasting games can be good for mental well-being.”
To fit all the missed fixtures, Gary Neville has suggested that players could play nine days in a row in a “festival of football” once it is safe to do so. Is this feasible?
“It would be something spectacular,” Neville said on Sky’s Debate programme. “Football can bring some hope and joy to the country when we finally come out of this crisis.”
Well intentioned, sources say that in reality this would be extremely unlikely. Neville built his career on absolute dedication, but the modern game is different to his era and the PFA would have a view on such physical exposure.
“I’d be gobsmacked,” said one executive. “I don’t think clubs would let it come to that. It would put players at risk of injury and whether you are Man United or Accrington Stanley nobody wants a player to snap his Achilles through fatigue and be out for six months for the sake of finishing the season quickly.”
https://theathletic.com/1691634/2020/03/21/premier-league-meeting-qa/?redirected=1
By Laurie Whitwell and David Ornstein Mar 21, 2020
As representatives from all 20 Premier League clubs dialled into Thursday’s conference call hosted at the Brunel Building in Paddington, London, the agenda was clear: reassess the postponement to English football in alignment with the growing coronavirus pandemic.
None of the executives could see each other, rather the list of names ‘present’ at Premier League headquarters appeared on each person’s computer screen across the country, but that did not inhibit a robust dialogue about a number of issues that the current crisis has caused.
For those who went armed with a suspicion the meeting could become embroiled in partisanship there was instead a welcome sense of unity and when Claudia Arney, the Premier League’s interim chair, brought the discussion to a close, a further suspension of matches to April 30 and a firm intention to complete the 2019-20 season had been unanimously agreed.
There were though other matters on the table and by gaining an insight into the subject and tone of those conversations, The Athletic can now address some of the questions many supporters have about how — and when — football might be able to crank back into action.
How realistic is it that English football will resume on April 30?
Sources say there was an acceptance in the room that the date announced would “probably not” see a return of Premier League action, but a line had to be drawn to provide some kind of structure for clubs.
April 30 is far enough in the future whereby a semblance of planning can take place. “You can now give players a set three weeks off,” said one executive. “If you push it back a week at a time everyone is in no-man’s land.
“Equally, there is no point making the date too far off — say May 30 — and then it turns out we could play games earlier, as bleak as the situation looks right now.”
Another director was left with the impression the Premier League would do “everything they can” to get football back on by the end of May, even if that meant going behind closed doors — although curiously the issue of playing in empty stadiums was not specifically discussed. A number of clubs privately accept that in these unprecedented times, drastic measures are required.
What would this delay mean for the start of next season?
While such particulars will only be ascertained once the full effect of coronavirus is known, it has been speculated among decision-makers that as far as fitness is concerned players might only require a fortnight break in between campaigns due to the inevitable long hiatus now, rather than the customary six weeks in summer.
People would then simply have to come to terms more quickly with however their seasons finished — good or bad — and the only real issue would relate to the transfer market, and whether clubs could accept a truncated window in which to do business.
Was the summer window discussed on Thursday?
It was, because a number of executives are aware of particular cases that could get messy without clarification. Players often have contract extensions that need to be activated by a certain date, the middle of May usually, but some clubs would be unable to hit the button without knowing what division they might be in and what budget they might have.
This three-week period before the next meeting will allow for discussions to be had on such details. In the meeting one suggestion was that dates in contracts could be pushed back to correlate with the postponement of the football calendar, as long as the Professional Footballers’ Association concurred.
“Everyone accepts there needs to be a common-sense approach,” said a source. “We could in effect rewrite contracts so May becomes June, or July becomes August. It would need all parties to agree of course. But it felt like everyone was on the same page. We are all going to be affected one way or another, so as long as new rules don’t advantage anyone, I think people will be sensible.”
Could we yet see the campaign declared null and void?
During the conference call there was a collective, concerted message that the 2019-20 season had to be finished.
Ed Woodward, Manchester United’s executive vice-chairman, was among the most strident on this point. Described as being “very fair” in his wider input, Woodward was nevertheless firm in saying that even if the season had to run into September or October, that should be the course of action. There was no hint of trying to deny Liverpool a first title in 30 years, as might mischievously be proposed by some.
Uniting all those dialling in was the prospect of a massive financial penalty for failing to complete the season. As The Athletic revealed on Friday, executives were told that broadcasters such as Sky and BT Sport could demand a total of £762 million be returned if the campaign was curtailed, to cover the games still due to be shown on TV. It would be considered breach of contract.
There would be the prospect of negotiation on that figure, sources argue, given the Premier League’s importance to both channels — but it remains enough of a concern to bring a common consensus.
“There was a togetherness that we need to sort this out,” said a source. “Finance was the big motivator.”
This is not about greed, however. “Ultimately, we’re just businesses that make tiny profits,” said one Premier League executive. “If the cashflow dries up we’re no different to hotel groups or anything else. If we don’t put on the show we don’t get paid. If we don’t finish the season it’s a massive, massive problem.
“It’s not just the TV money — after that the sponsors won’t pay you because they’re not on TV and you’ll also miss out on gate money, which is £5 million to £6 million per game for some clubs.”
Another club director said: “Losing money like that doesn’t just affect the first-team players, it affects the receptionist, the canteen staff. These are the people who possibly face redundancies. Sub-contractors, pie sellers, people who rely on the club for their businesses. They are the first cutbacks when you don’t have the income arriving.
“If somebody asked me to take a pay cut in these circumstances, I’d do it tomorrow. If it meant keeping me and other people in jobs, why wouldn’t you?
“What people need to realise with big clubs is they also have big expenditure — you’re not talking hundreds of thousands but hundreds of millions. It could have catastrophic effects.”
Did any clubs offer an alternative opinion?
Karren Brady, West Ham United’s chief executive, and Paul Barber, the equivalent for Brighton & Hove Albion, were said to express a note of caution on the realities of finishing the season, given the scale of the crisis is not yet known.
If, for example, humanitarian reasons mean football cannot be resumed until July or later, the prospect of completing the remaining nine rounds of fixtures and starting a new season in a suitable manner would come into doubt.
Brady has written in her Sun newspaper column that in the event of a curtailment the “only fair and reasonable thing to do is declare the whole season null and void” but that would invite legal challenges from clubs in the Championship chasing promotion, notably Leeds United and West Bromwich Albion.
There was no talk of league positions during the call — with “egos parked at the door” — but it is clear that any attempt to relegate the clubs currently in the drop zone, as some observers have proposed, would automatically bring court cases from Norwich City, Aston Villa (who have a game in hand), and Bournemouth.
Was it all about money?
No. It was also touched on how clubs have a responsibility to fans and communities in these difficult times. “Football is a release,” said a source. “People will be getting bored and going stir crazy. Broadcasting games can be good for mental well-being.”
To fit all the missed fixtures, Gary Neville has suggested that players could play nine days in a row in a “festival of football” once it is safe to do so. Is this feasible?
“It would be something spectacular,” Neville said on Sky’s Debate programme. “Football can bring some hope and joy to the country when we finally come out of this crisis.”
Well intentioned, sources say that in reality this would be extremely unlikely. Neville built his career on absolute dedication, but the modern game is different to his era and the PFA would have a view on such physical exposure.
“I’d be gobsmacked,” said one executive. “I don’t think clubs would let it come to that. It would put players at risk of injury and whether you are Man United or Accrington Stanley nobody wants a player to snap his Achilles through fatigue and be out for six months for the sake of finishing the season quickly.”
https://theathletic.com/1691634/2020/03/21/premier-league-meeting-qa/?redirected=1
