Premier League Reject 'Project Big Picture' Plans

[ScoRoss]

Seems this isn't dead yet. Clubs still want a 'reformed' Premier League, with a reduction to 18 teams.

[Smiley Culture]

I can see something in this actually. Now the Champions League has gone to a minimum of ten group games and the Europa is going to eight games and when you consider that there are games in International football with qualifiers, Nations League and tournaments, the League Cup and the FA Cup, there’s ridiculous amounts of football and if anything, too much. I’ve said it before, though not ever expecting it to be a serious consideration because you’d lose about twelve games and the subsequent cash from Sky’s contract, that the Premier League should drop a couple of teams.

As for Celtic and Rangers, I can’t see it. 

[6666]

6 hours ago, ScoRoss said:

Seems this isn't dead yet. Clubs still want a 'reformed' Premier League, with a reduction to 18 teams.

Reduction to 18 teams is a good idea in my opinion. 

[Inverted]

Considering that the bottom 2 this season have been dead as a dodo almost from the get go, it does feel like an 18 club league might actually be a bit more exciting, as well as helping cut the load of games. 
 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

9 hours ago, ScoRoss said:

Seems this isn't dead yet. Clubs still want a 'reformed' Premier League, with a reduction to 18 teams.

Would Scottish football fans thinks this is bad for Scottish football, because they’d lose 2 massive Glasgow clubs, or good for it - because it should make the league a lot more open?

[Honey Honey]

Reducing the league is ESL club bias. So comfortable in their Premier League places they'd vote to downsize it for their own perceived advantage in European competitions and nothing else. 

Beware the snakes. Remove their voting rights for 5 years.

[The Palace Fan]

47 minutes ago, SkyBruce Championship said:

Reducing the league is ESL club bias. So comfortable in their Premier League places they'd vote to downsize it for their own perceived advantage in European competitions and nothing else. 

Beware the snakes. Remove their voting rights for 5 years.

Haven't got to worry about Arsenal voting it in. More chance they'll get relegated than winning the league if they reduce the number of teams.

[6666]

1 hour ago, SkyBruce Championship said:

Reducing the league is ESL club bias. So comfortable in their Premier League places they'd vote to downsize it for their own perceived advantage in European competitions and nothing else. 

Beware the snakes. Remove their voting rights for 5 years.

It's better for the quality of the league. European competition is irrelevant.

The Premier League doesn't need to be 20 teams for the same reason the Champions League doesn't need to be 36 teams. People can't say diluting the quality isn't an issue with the Premier League while also saying it's an issue with the Champions League. And there are too many games. Having two domestic cup competitions is more of an issue though.

[Happy Blue]

It would be great if Italy, France, Spain & Germany's  top clubs joined the Premier League   ..i'm not totally against Celtic & Rangers joining the Championship/Division 1 

[Honey Honey]

12 hours ago, 6666 said:

It's better for the quality of the league. European competition is irrelevant.

The Premier League doesn't need to be 20 teams for the same reason the Champions League doesn't need to be 36 teams. People can't say diluting the quality isn't an issue with the Premier League while also saying it's an issue with the Champions League. And there are too many games. Having two domestic cup competitions is more of an issue though.

The Premier League is 38 game league. It isn't comparable to the Champions League. The nature of the tournaments have a significant bearing on performance.

How is 2 less better for the quality of the league? Is it the false assumption that because the bottom 2 are shite cutting them off improves the quality? It's an odd measure. What it will likely do is change the psyche of teams who are currently above the bottom 3 in a negative way as they suddenly become made bottom 3 teams. Bringing all the negative trimmings of the relegation zone, confidence collapse, fan pressure etc. Just as the Super League would have meant Arsenal would have a 25% win ratio at best, and the subsequent position within that league would negatively impact the psyche sending it on a downward spiral in which game plan shifts to an approach which is very different to when you are safe. Likely also making Arsenal even WORSE in the Premier League as their confidence takes a pounding every Wednesday. This is how leagues fallout. This is how life is at the bottom. The teams just outside the relegation zone down the bottom half aren't winning any less than they did 20 years ago. They are drawing less and losing more. 

There are not too many games. That's ESL bias. The rest of us have our first teams play on average probably 41 games a season. Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo at their peak played 70+ games a season. We don't need the rest. Maybe you lot need to start by cancelling your money making Asia tours every summer if you're tired.

Lastly, TV revenues wouldn't fall with fewer teams in the league, meaning what? Oh yeah more money for those left. Exactly what the ESL snakes are trying to achieve.

There is no strong argument for cutting the league. Just these flimsy ones and ESL bias.

[6666]

4 hours ago, SkyBruce Championship said:

The Premier League is 38 game league. It isn't comparable to the Champions League. The nature of the tournaments have a significant bearing on performance.

How is 2 less better for the quality of the league? Is it the false assumption that because the bottom 2 are shite cutting them off improves the quality? It's an odd measure. What it will likely do is change the psyche of teams who are currently above the bottom 3 in a negative way as they suddenly become made bottom 3 teams. Bringing all the negative trimmings of the relegation zone, confidence collapse, fan pressure etc. Just as the Super League would have meant Arsenal would have a 25% win ratio at best, and the subsequent position within that league would negatively impact the psyche sending it on a downward spiral in which game plan shifts to an approach which is very different to when you are safe. Likely also making Arsenal even WORSE in the Premier League as their confidence takes a pounding every Wednesday. This is how leagues fallout. This is how life is at the bottom. The teams just outside the relegation zone down the bottom half aren't winning any less than they did 20 years ago. They are drawing less and losing more. 

There are not too many games. That's ESL bias. The rest of us have our first teams play on average probably 41 games a season. Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo at their peak played 70+ games a season. We don't need the rest. Maybe you lot need to start by cancelling your money making Asia tours every summer if you're tired.

Lastly, TV revenues wouldn't fall with fewer teams in the league, meaning what? Oh yeah more money for those left. Exactly what the ESL snakes are trying to achieve.

There is no strong argument for cutting the league. Just these flimsy ones and ESL bias.

Everything is ESL bias... this week has done a number on you. 

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

Everything is ESL bias... this week has done a number on you. 

I'm emboldened to call out bias this week, sure. If you don't like it up ya then fair enough bottle the debate.

[6666]

14 minutes ago, SkyBruce Championship said:

I'm emboldened to call out bias this week, sure. If you don't like it up ya then fair enough bottle the debate.

Who's bottling the debate? Stop being so dramatic. I think an 18 team league would be better, you don't, fair enough, it's not that deep. This failed ESL project really has you wound up.

[RandoEFC+]

Imagine thinking the Champions League needs more games from a footballing perspective. I've made this point a million times across the forum. Having six games to sort out which two teams will qualify from a group containing Real Madrid, Inter, FC Kobenhavn and Rangers is just silly. Of course you get your exceptions but that happens under any format. It always astounds me how we just accept the fact that the rich clubs come back from a dead rubber against Brondby in the last game of the group stages and have the gall to complain about they have to play a knockout tie against Rotherham 40 miles away the following Tuesday and how the domestic competition in question should either be castrated further or scrapped completely to suit a minority of clubs that already have crushing structural and historical advantages over the rest of the football pyramid.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

Who's bottling the debate? Stop being so dramatic. I think an 18 team league would be better, you don't, fair enough, it's not that deep. This failed ESL project really has you wound up.

You made claims, I argued against that, making a series of points. It is there to be discussed. The correct process next is to counter point and defend your original position or walk away if don't think it is worth it. It is not to throw a cheap insult, that tends to be what people do when they don't like that their opinion has been challenged, when they feel humiliated by that challenge and they want to belittle that person back. If you want a proper discussion then that's what I'm here for, if you're not interested then fine move on, but don't pretend there's nothing to discuss as a wider means to keep pushing the insult rabbit hole you went down.

[DeadLinesman]

The only thing that winds Harvey up is Steve Bruce not being given the praise he so thoroughly deserves.

[Dr. Gonzo]

The last time greedy clubs reorganised English football, it probably set in this spiral of soulless modern football that led to greedy clubs trying to start a super league.

So it’s probably best to tell greedy clubs to work on keeping their finances in check - and if trying to compete with clubs that have unlimited cash is leading clubs to not be able to keep their finances in check, some sort of regulation on those very rich clubs is probably a better solution than just giving into greed.

[6666]

1 hour ago, SkyBruce Championship said:

You made claims, I argued against that, making a series of points. It is there to be discussed. The correct process next is to counter point and defend your original position or walk away if don't think it is worth it. It is not to throw a cheap insult, that tends to be what people do when they don't like that their opinion has been challenged, when they feel humiliated by that challenge and they want to belittle that person back. If you want a proper discussion then that's what I'm here for, if you're not interested then fine move on, but don't pretend there's nothing to discuss as a wider means to keep pushing the insult rabbit hole you went down.

Nah, you're just being overly dramatic. It's not a debate in parliament regardless of if you feel empowered and emotional by the collapse of the ESL. You have your stance and I have my opinion. Nothing wrong with stating both sides but you seem to be under the impression there needs to be a "winner".

18 teams creates a tighter league with fewer teams doing nothing. The amount of money teams would get is an irrelevant point as far as that is concerned. You haven't changed my mind on that, and I don't really care about changing yours. 

[Honey Honey]

19 hours ago, 6666 said:

Nah, you're just being overly dramatic. It's not a debate in parliament regardless of if you feel empowered and emotional by the collapse of the ESL. You have your stance and I have my opinion. Nothing wrong with stating both sides but you seem to be under the impression there needs to be a "winner".

18 teams creates a tighter league with fewer teams doing nothing. The amount of money teams would get is an irrelevant point as far as that is concerned. You haven't changed my mind on that, and I don't really care about changing yours. 

This is a forum, the point of it is to have conversations and explore ideas with one another. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to explain themselves. What is completely unreasonable is to give a view then chastise anyone with a counter point instead of engaging with it. What you did is actually the sort of crap that happens in parliament every Wednesday. Deflect and bottle the detail, politician all over.

You made a short statement that the quality would improve. I asked questions on that, how you are defining it and explained why I thought otherwise. I shouldn't have to call out your behaviour in order to find out more which is what has now happened here as you start to give more.

Maybe you'll now answer the question asked. How is quality being defined? Are you regarding tightness as quality? Why and how?

The money point was not about the quality. That point was made long after the section about quality. It should be fairly clear which points are at what you said.

[6666]

58 minutes ago, SkyBruce Championship said:

This is a forum, the point of it is to have conversations and explore ideas with one another. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to explain themselves. What is completely unreasonable is to give a view then chastise anyone with a counter point instead of engaging with it. What you did is actually the sort of crap that happens in parliament every Wednesday. Deflect and bottle the detail, politician all over.

You made a short statement that the quality would improve. I asked questions on that, how you are defining it and explained why I thought otherwise. I shouldn't have to call out your behaviour in order to find out more which is what has now happened here as you start to give more.

Maybe you'll now answer the question asked. How is quality being defined? Are you regarding tightness as quality? Why and how?

The money point was not about the quality. That point was made long after the section about quality. It should be fairly clear which points are at what you said.

"Calling out your behaviour"... fucking hell. 

Fewer teams, tighter league, fewer nothing games, more competitive. Not difficult to understand. There isn't a need for me to write an essay, it's pretty self explanatory.