*takes deeps breath*

A thread for those interested in the complexity of PL clubs taking govt furlough cash + the morality of doing so

Spoiler: it’s not a black-and-white issue

Warning: It’s long (but you’re on lockdown, so what’s not to like?)

For context: hundreds of companies big and small are doing this. Many multi nationals, such as BA, McDonalds, Costa etc. Also media companies such as Reach, which publish your local paper, Mirror + Express titles + which made £153m operating profits last year

So, why is it wrong for football clubs and not for big business? Of course, it’s illogical. It’s about perception. But football should realise – more than any other business – logic isn’t relevant when we consider 22 people chasing a ball became a multi-billion pound business

Football is conspicuous in its wealth + flaunts it in a way that is perhaps only comparable with bankers, FTSE 100 company chief exec pay + bonuses. All those £9bn TV deals, £100m transfers, players on £250,000 a week

All those image rights schemes designed to avoid tax. Not to mention football’s own executive pay issues. Daniel Levy’s £3m bonus announced last week was especially crass

And there’s the rub. Football gravest error has been to misjudge the new political reality of fast-changing world. It *looks* bad for a PL club to take govt money. Any PL club. It’s bad for Liverpool (who have U-turned), Spurs, Newcastle. But also Norwich and Bournemouth…

No PL club should have cash flow issues now that require govt help. They’ve had almost all the TV cash for 19-20. They’re missing home games, which is bad. 4 x home games for MUFC = £17m. For Bournemouth = £1m. But if that causes a cash flow crisis now, something is wrong

IF the season is void, then they will all have massive issues: £1.1bn of accumulated losees for the PL. They will need player wage cuts then. But furlough/player cuts now are to do with fear + uncertainty of what might happen

That’s understandable. It’s job of any business to prepare + plan months/years ahead. But if the total cost of furloughing staff at Liverpool for 3 months was estimated at £2m, then no club should need to do so this month

Bear in mind ALL clubs have enough spare to find £1m each for the NHS donation. That’s welcome + a generous gesture but it’s primarily done to try to communicate to the public they’re not heartless. In reality, it’s an inefficient way to help the country

Companies get tax relief on charitable giving, so at some stage it will mean less tax for the govt

The best way to help the country would be to say: ‘For next 3 months, until we find out what happen with the season, we’ll avoid taking govt money as a gesture of solidarity.’ That’s more helpful than any donation. And the £1m each could have gone to that

Same goes for players: it would be better to argue for higher taxes rather than give money to NHS, which gets a tax rebate + so results in a tax cut. Money right now won’t help the NHS. As far as I understand, it’s equipment, resources they require

Again, pay cuts to help clubs avoiding furlough, supporting L1 + L2 colleagues would help the nation. In general tho wage deferrals seem to make more sense than cuts. The PFA made the point eloquently enough on Sat. I think everyone gets it now. A pay cut hurts govt tax intake

wage deferrals could be linked to the next TV deal. 2019-22 was worth £9.2bn. Even if there was a massive cut in changed market, £6bn deal would allow any deferrals to be paid back then. (Of course, the long-term implications of this for players are long term pay cuts in future)

The issue for any club furloughing staff will be when they go into the transfer market. Levy is prob right the £100m transfer is dead for now. But the £20m transfer? I expect that THFC, will sign players worth that in the next 2 years. Maybe Bournemouth, Newcastle too. Then what?

Was buying holding midfielder more important than paying your club shop manager back in April 2020?Could you not have put aside money from your transfer reserves? Instead of buying, use your academy? If saving are needed, could you not simply forgo a season of transfers?

Obvs THFC did precisely this in 18-19 + were criticised. In football terms it makes little sense not to buy. But these aren’t normal times. If THFC really can’t afford to pay staff now, then there must be an assumption that they won’t be entering the transfer market any time soon

(Insert your own Daniel Levy joke here. And Jose Mourinho emoji face)

Even a commitment to work off net proceeds doesn’t really cut it. Say, in post crisis transfer market, Spurs sell Harry Kane to Real Madrid for £60m. Couldn’t £2m of that be have been set aside to help pay the staff they have furloughed?

Every single deal they do now will be questioned by the public. Every pay rise for a player. Every new contract. That’s why Levy played a real bad hand in political terms

Whether it’s morally wrong is another question. An issue with a universal benefit is it helps rich as much as the poor,. The govt never said scheme was only available to small businesses. It’s there for everyone. The more people who can be kept in work, the better for society

But as argued above, did PL clubs really need to consider making redundancies now? Most people understood that the scheme was intended for companies under more acute pressure than a PL club. But the rules don’t say that and nor have the govt.

In conclusion: PL clubs taking furlough pay are doing nothing wrong technically. But IMO they have made a v bad political call. And gone way too early with it

In an environment in which they want to persuade govt not to outlaw gambling ads, not to increase their responsibilities to build leisure facilities for the public, they’re now exposed by the actions of Levy and others. They will be an easy political target once this is all over