By Sean Ó'Conaill
 
News emerged yesterday from the Circuit Court of the Examinership process that Limerick FC were engaged in had failed to produce a positive outcome. The unfortunate result of this is that, most likely, Munster Football Club Limited which trades as Limerick FC will have a liquidator appointed and the holding company will eventually cease to exist as a company.

Unfortunately, Irish football has a long and ongoing relationship with insolvency events over the years where a number of clubs have entered Examinership or have ultimately been liquidated. This is not a situation unique to Ireland with insolvency events a regular feature of football in most jurisdictions with Bury FC being a very prominent recent example in England.

For football clubs, insolvency events generally fall into one of two separate but often interconnected categories. Liquidation is the legal process under the Companies Acts whereby a company is effectively killed off because it cannot continue as a going concern. In the case of football clubs, this means the holding company behind the football club (usually a limited liability company of one sort or another) is being liquidated.

Examinership is the Irish legal process where a company is given some breathing space from its creditors for a set period, which can be extended, in order to try and get the company back on an even keel and to allow it to continue as a going concern. A very similar process to Examinership is known as Administration in the England and Wales and Chapter in the United States.

For football clubs, the process involves the creditors of the football club taking a significant hit on the amount they are owed but crucially it allows the company to continue in existence, usually under new ownership. Most Football Associations apply strict criteria and some sporting sanction for having entered examinership due to the perception of an unfair advantage arising from it. In the 2019 League of Ireland season Limerick FC amassed 36 points on the field of play notionally placing them 6th in the First Division (2nd tier) league table. However, having entered Examinership, Limerick were deducted 26 points which meant their adjusted league position was 10th and last.

Limerick FC entered into Examinership with a very experienced firm - Baker Tilly Chartered Accountants - taking the lead in the process. Unfortunately, yesterday’s developments demonstrate that Limerick FC and the Court Appointed Examiner were unable to secure the required investment and the holding company will now be liquidated.

This, however, does not necessarily have to mean the end for everything that Limerick FC does. The Courts have no jurisdiction to liquidate a football club, they can only liquidate the holding company. The club itself is a separate entity that exists in the football sense, is a member of the Football Association of Ireland and affiliated to the League of Ireland and some local leagues around Limerick at certain age levels. The club and the holding company, although closely linked, are not the same thing. The most superficial look at the various holding companies behind every current League of Ireland member will show that most have had multiple holding companies over their entire existence as football clubs with the vast majority having experience some insolvency events over the years.

Up until the arrival of Club Licensing this distinction made little difference. If the holding company behind a football club got into difficulty, the club would merely be spun off into a different company, and continue to compete as a club if the holding company behind it was liquidated, even if this occurred during the season (such as what happened to Cork City FC in 1996). Club licensing put a stop to these practices as it created a tighter link between the holding company and the licence required to compete at League of Ireland and UEFA level.

Cork City FC and Derry City FC in 2010 are two interesting examples of the impact of these changes with both clubs starting the 2010 League of Ireland season in the First Division. Cork City FC, while maintaining the same membership of the FAI after they were awarded the licence to compete in the First Division, had to compete under the name Cork City FORAS Co-Op for the 2010 season until the intellectual property rights were acquired by FORAS from the liquidator of the previous holding company in mid-2010.

Licences are now awarded to clubs who are members of the FAI, via their holding companies or legal entities. This ensures that clubs cannot simply preform a “phoenix trick” of running up debt and then running away from it to form a new holding company without any sanction. It does allow a certain degree of flexibility to the FAI.

This means there is effectively no prospect of Limerick FC competing next season in the First Division of the League of Ireland, due to the costs and licensing implications for the holding company at senior league of Ireland level. In any event it appears as though no licence to compete in the men’s League of Ireland has been made by those behind the holding company pending the outcome of the examinership process. There might however be some prospect of entities like the Limerick FC Women’s team and perhaps some of the other connected teams being spun out, with the help of a liquidator and the FAI, to a separate entity allowing the club to continue to compete in the Women’s National League and perhaps at some underage grades for example. This could, potentially in time become a vehicle to resurrect senior men’s football in Limerick pending the settlement of the liquidation of the holding company.

Dr Sean Ó'Conaill is a lecturer in the School of Law, University College Cork. Sean lectures sports law and is a Director of the Centre for Sports Economcis and Law (CSEL).

By Robbie Butler

In February this year I addressed the issue of Irish horse racing moving from its long-time home of Attheraces (now Sky Sports Racing) to Racing TV. The piece discusses a number of challenges for the move, particularly Irish racing's place on the new channel. After nearly one year of the new provider, some of the obstacles remain.

This week the Racing Post ran a article about television coverage of the Grade 1 John Durkan Chase at Punchestown on Sunday. In the piece, general manager of Punchestown racecourse and chairman of Horse Racing Ireland’s media rights committee Conor O’Neill,  said he was “very disappointed” that the race was broadcast on a split screen on Racing TV and lacked commentary until the final number of furlongs. 

The race shared the screen, firstly with a race from Huntington, and then Cork. As the Peterborough Chase at Huntington started before the John Durkan it took commentary from the English track. Once this ended, Cork replaced the English course in the split screen, with commentary changing to the John Durkan Chase at Punchestown. 

Of course, this only happened because of a delay of more than 10 minutes to the race at Punchestown. The race was due to start at 1.50pm. Huntington started as planned at 1.55pm and Cork 2.05pm. Because the John Durkan Chase did not start until just after 2pm, it was sandwiched between the 1.55pm and 2.05pm races.

But things may get worse. The 26th of December is the busiest day in the horse racing calendar. 11 meetings take place in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Racing TV have exclusive access to 8 of the 11 courses. One can understand the need for multiple split screens during the day, as it is impossible to sequence races so that they do not clash. And what if there is a delay?

​This is a little like an airport and landing slots. If a plane is delayed or not ready to leave it can miss a slot. Races courses won't wait however so races will proceed, later than planned, and clashes will be unavoidable. If may even be the case that three races are in running concurrently, despite the best efforts of organisers. 

There were just four meetings on Racing TV last Sunday. One has to wonder how a doubling of this to 8 can be accommodated on just one channel.

By David Butler

Like many others, I watched the Manchester Derby last Saturday. United's pace on the counter attack is impressive - scoring on the break seems to be a key trait of Ole's strategy.

It might seem slightly counter intuitive but holding the ball against Manchester United may not necessarily be a good thing. 

This is somewhat borne out in the possession data. Of Manchester United's six wins they have only had the ball more than the opposition once (versus Norwich, 53.9%). On average, Man Utd held the ball for 43.26% of the match for wins, 55.56% for draws and 62.77% for losses.

While they may have the ball more late in the game as teams try to hold on, the strategy to getting a positive result against Manchester United seems to leave them have it. Duncan Ferguson should be happy to leave them dominate possession next weekend - it could just get him a job! 

By John Considine

Jesus fed thousands of people with just a few loaves and fish.  Sometimes economic consultants tell us similar stories and parables.  Investec want us to believe that "the State may recoup up to €195 in tax revenue for every €100 invested in sport-related activity". WOW.  This is taken from the "Key Findings" section of An Assessment of the Economic Benefits of Sport in Ireland.

How does this loaves & fishes impact happen?  How can €1.00 become €1.95?  The multiplier.  Suppose the government spends €1 and the person who gets it spends 50c, and the person who gets the 50c spends 25c, and the person who gets the 25c spends 12.5c, and so on.  If we add up all these expenditures then we get €2.  The multiplier in this case is 2.

The multiplier is the best friend of the economic consultant.  It is attributed to Richard Kahn and made popular by John Maynard Keynes.  Investec say, the multiplier of 1.95 means that "every €1 outlay on sport generates €1.95 in economic activity".  But hold on, how goes this €1.95 increase in economic activity translate into €1.95 in tax revenue?  What is the implied tax rate?  Answers on a postcard to Investec Economic Research.

The work was commissioned by the Federation of Irish Sport.  The chairman of that organisation, Roddy Guiney, writes the Foreword and he zones in on the €1.95 finding.  Guiney says "for every euro invested by the Government in sport the return could be as much as €1.95."

The words "may recoup up to" and "could be as much as" are not enough to warn off those who want to believe.  True believers usually don't require evidence.  Faith is enough.  Those with a little less faith, but want to believe, can now quote economic scripture according to Investec.  They will probably not read the full report.  If they did then they would find a little more qualification.  Later on in the report we find the €1.95 claim followed by "although we are mindful that the multiplier of 1.95 is an EU-wide estimate rather than specific to the Irish context".  Indeed.  So let us look at the Irish figures provided in the Study on the Economic Impact of Sport through Sport Satellite Accounts.  The document provides a range of multipliers that go to make up the country specific multiplier.  None of these domestic "sector-specific multiplier" is as big as 1.95.  None.  Using the Ireland table in the EU report, the GDP-weighted multiplier for Ireland is 1.21.  A far cry from 1.95.  So why did Investec use 1.95 rather than one "specific to the Irish context"?  Is the Federation of Irish Sport unhappy with the use of the 1.95 multiplier?  I'm guessing that the Federation of Irish Sport will not be putting a cheque in the post to me for suggesting the 1.95 multiplier is not the appropriate one.

Warner Brother would sign-off their cartoons with "That's All Folks!"  The title of this blog post comes from one of those cartoons.  Bugs Bunny is asked to multiply two very large multi-digit numbers.  He immediately gives the correct answer.  He then says "if there is one thing us rabbits can do, its multiply".

That's not all folks!  We'll return to some of the other findings in the report at a later date.

​By David Butler

Many models estimating spectator demand consider the role of travel costs as a determinant of stadium attendance. Unsurprisingly, distances between clubs are often found to be important to live attendance.

It’s interesting to consider travel costs given last weekend’s Euro 2020 draw. For those unfamiliar with the competition, Euro 2020 is different from its predecessors; there is no one/two host countries but rather the fixtures are scheduled in 12 cities across Europe. This is to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the tournament (although an alternative hypothesis is that hosts are becoming increasingly reluctant given the expansion of the tournament and associated higher costs).

Before fans would flock to, for example, France (2016), Poland/Ukraine (2012) or another host country. Now the costs are shared by hosts, an implication being that many fans have more complex travel arrangements, travelling to at least two host cities.  

These host cities include eight national capitals. The fans from these countries will face much lower costs as now they don't have to travel for their group games. For example, the English, Spanish, Italians, Danes, Russians, Dutch and Germans will see their team play three home matches.

For fans from non-host countries, Euro 2020 is shaping up to be expensive and, for some, a logistical nightmare. Many fans now have to hike around Europe, as opposed to just one country. The table below offers some back-of-an-envelope cost estimates for travelling fans attending all three Euro 2020 group games.

The costs are based on the logic that fans will attend all three matches and come home in between fixtures, unless they have a consecutive match in the same city some days later, in which case they will purchase additional accommodation.  

It’s assumed that fans travel the day before and leave the day after (if they don’t have another match in the coming days).

Round trip flight prices are estimated from Google Flights. It’s assumed fans are flying from the most populated city to the host city (one exception was Bilboa – Barcelona was used). The most efficient, lowest-priced, flight option was taken (non-stop).

The hotel prices (City 1 and City 2) are estimated from Booking.com where the cheapest option is selected. The accommodation criteria were a 3-star hotel, less than 1km from the city centre - hardly extravagant lodgings.
​
The match ticket prices are based on the UEFA ticketing system. In all cases, I chose the cheapest (category 3) entry fee's.  

Under this model the Finns face the highest costs. The French are best off. As the Finn's have never been to the Euro’s before I’m sure they will be happy to pay it.

Save a thought for the Belgian, Polish, Austrian and Portuguese fans. They must travel to Copenhagen, Bucharest, Dublin and Budapest and return for to these locations for their final match having traveled elsewhere in the meantime.

The estimates also give some timely insights for the Irish. The Swedes will have to stay in Dublin for 7 nights. For this length of stay, Dublin comes in as the most expensive accommodation estimate.  Also, the Poles travel here for a match on the 15th of June, thanks to Michael O’Leary they face the cheapest trip of all travelling fans – return flights from Warsaw to Dublin for €117.
 
On average, the Euro 2020’ group stages will likely cost a travelling fan about €1845 using the logic (of course, mainland Europeans may have plenty of other options outside of flying that may have lower costs and even cheaper accommodation could be sought).

Obviously, these are just the basic costs too – fans haven’t bought so much as a beer or bus ticket yet. Also, they don’t include any progression past the group stage. Costs will definitely increase for some. 

So spare a thought for the travelling fans. This might be a lean Christmas. Then again, I’m sure the Irish would just love to have the problem of finding the money for a trip to Bilboa to face Spain next June.

By Robbie Butler

Earlier this week, former England manager Sam Allardyce said on TalkSport radio:

"The best way to get a Premier League job if you are British is to change your name to a foreign name. I have always said if I was ‘Allardicio’ I could have managed Manchester United". (The interview can be seen here).

This is quite a statement given that Allardyce, who began his managerial career in Ireland taking charge of Limerick, is the only person ever to manage 7 Premier League clubs over some 512 games (Bolton Wanderers (226), West Ham United (114), Blackburn Rovers (76), Sunderland (30), Everton (24), Newcastle United (21), Crystal Palace (21)). 

10 of the top 12 managers, listed by the number of Premier League games they have managed, are from Great Britain or Northern Ireland. This includes Sam himself, Alex Ferguson, Harry Redknapp, David Moyes, , Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce, Martin O'Neill, Alan Curbishley, Tony Pulis and Alan Pardew.

The overall distribution of managers by nationality is also skewed towards domestic (U.K) managers. In total 204 men have been appointed to 399 positions. The distribution by nationality is presented below.  

At present in the Premier League almost half of the managers are from Great Britain or Northern Ireland. While this is a drop in domestic representation when compared with the overall data from 1992, it is hard to argue that British managers are not well represented in the top league.

Of course, a different argument is that home-grown managers are not given the "top" jobs but this is a different argument entirely.

​The biggest job of them all, the England national team job, has been held by four English men since Italian Fabio Capello left the post in 2012. Alex Ferguson, David Moyes, Roy Hodgson, Kenny Dalglish, Tim Sherwood and Frank Lampard all manage(d) at top clubs during this decade.

As a starting point, the best way to get a job in the Premier League today is probably to be a very good manager.

By David Butler

​After 13 game weeks Liverpool have only failed to win once this season - at any level of football it typically takes this burst of wins to be crowned champions.

One way of looking at this is that the challengers run out of matches. Rather than any miraculous big-match wins from the future champions (which of course do happen), things are more attritional. You burn off the competition week-by-week as other contenders slip up.

Alex Ferguson had this down to a T.  His Manchester United sides would lose and draw some big games but would put all the minnows to the sword – others struggled to do this as effectively. After all, there is 3 points at stake for all matches regardless of the opponent.  

Liverpool seem to be knocking teams out of the Premier league race week-by-week. While in theory, any team can still win the league, for all intents and purposes the race is run for the vast majority.

Assuming that the winning team, most likely Liverpool, will accumulate 98 or 100 points – the points required to win the league in 2018/2019 and 2017/2018 – the challengers can have the following slips:

​Leicester City can drop a maximum of 6 points, Manchester City can drop a maximum of 5 points and Chelsea a maximum of 3 points.

​Both Leicester City and Manchester City can drop a maximum of 3 points and Chelsea must win all remaining matches. 

If Jurgen Klopp plans on replicating Liverpool form from last season (97 points total), he is already putting major pressure on his rivals. Manchester City can really only afford one more loss over the next 25 games if Liverpool go one point better this season and reach last year’s 98 point winning total.

For some extra bragging rights, Liverpool fans might take pleasure in knowing that they were the ones to knock Manchester United out of the title race. Again, assuming a 98-point league winner, Adam Lallana’s late equalising goal at Old Trafford effectively ended United’s tilt at the title. That was only 9 games in.  

Of course, these are very high winning totals and are down to Manchester City's exceptional performances. If an average of the last 5 seasons is considered (circa 92 points), there is scope for more slips from the contenders. 

By Robbie Butler 

In 2005 the "Cross Country Race" was run for the first time at the Cheltenham Festival . Over a distance of about 3 miles and 6 furlongs, the race is probably the most easily recognisable at the 4-day Festival as horses tackle a variety of different obstacles including grass banks, hurdles, wooden fences and “cheese-wedges” (two grass banks with hedge rows on top).

Run on the in-field of the famous Cotswolds course, the race has become synonymous with Ireland.  13 of the 15  races at the Cheltenham Festival have been won by Irish-trained horses. In fact, only the Philip Hobbs’ trained Balthazar King has raised the English flag.

Not only have Irish trained horses dominated the race at the Festival, but so too have horses from this island dominated the trial races at Cheltenham. 8 of the last 9 Irish winners had been placed previously over the cross-country course at Cheltenham before winning the race at the Festival.

So, to the most recent running of a trial race, on Sunday the 17th of November.

10 runners went to post last weekend, and remarkably, not a single horse was trained in Ireland. This most-Irish of races was, for the first time, devoid of Irish interest.
​
The data below presents the distribution of Irish to non-Irish runners in the November/December Cross Country Trial Race since 2008. In 11 of the 22 races between 2008 and 2019, Irish trained horses comprised at least 50% of the field. In December 2017, and both November and December 2018, Irish trained horses constituted between 63% and 71% of the field. One year on, November 2019, this falls to 0%.

One has to wonder whether this is Brexit in action? The deadline of the 31st of October 2019 was a mantra repeated again and again in recent months. Did this effect Irish trainer and owner decisions when deciding to enter horses in Britain? It does seem odd that an Irish dominated race would suddenly have no Irish interest.
​
No sport on this island will be effected to a greater extent if and when Brexit happens. Maybe we are starting to see the industry adjust to a new normal.

​By David Butler

The Euro 2020 qualifier group stage ended last night with the final automatic places being decided.

The high levels of predictability and imbalance in European international football have shone true once again.

All Pot 6 team finished bottom of their groups (where there were six teams). One team – San Marino  – failed to register a point (and only scored one goal). Except for two teams from Pot 3 (Turkey and Finland), all of the other automatic qualifiers came from Pot 1 and Pot 2. The seeding is a strong predictor of finishing position.

The chart shows that average points earned by pot – a clear monotonic relationship exists.

As I written about previously, the gap between Pot 1 and Pot 6 UEFA members is immense. This leads to fixtures where outcome uncertainty is virtually non-existent.

Looking at the fixtures between the top and bottom seed, Pot 1 teams took 58 out of 60 points – a major shock happened when Azerbaijan drew 1-1 at home to Croatia. Pot 1 teams scored 84 goals in these fixtures compared to the meagre 7 scored by the bottom seeds. The most salient mismatch was Belgium beating San Marino 9-0 last October.

What about Pot 1 teams against their second from bottom seed (Pot 5 or Pot 4 depending on group size)?

This is more of the same, Pot 1 teams took 57 out of 60 points. Again, Croatia were shocked when they lost 2-1 to Hungary. Similarly, to the bottom seeds, these Pot 4/5 teams score few goals against the big boys, only scoring 8 times but conceding 67. Italy’s recent 9-1 thrashing of Armenia stands out.

For me this begs the question of whether this type of competition design should continue. The non-economic argument for continuity is that the “dream is kept alive” for small countries. Many economic reasons also exist to keep things as they are, with plenty of inventory for broadcasters, and big occasions for smaller countries.

Perhaps UEFA could take insights from the ‘Eurovision model’ – where the big countries automatically qualify. These Pot 1 teams could compete among themselves in the run-up, maybe in a league style format (surely appealing to broadcasters?), while the rest battle it out for the remaining European Championship places. 

By Jessica Considine

2000-2004

2005-2009

2010-2014

2015