Premier League Reject 'Project Big Picture' Plans

[Dan+]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don’t understand how West Ham are there but Aston Villa aren’t? Were Villa out of the league long enough?

They've named the 9 teams currently on the longest runs in the Premier League. Southampton & West Ham came up in 2012 and Aston Villa only came up a year or so ago. They've deliberately cut it off there to assist with the rigging.

I actually think if this goes through I probably won't renew my season ticket. I just don't see the point anymore. We're capped at what we can achieve.

American owners are the worst. I don't really follow American sports but not far off every American owner in English football has been absolutely dreadful. They view it all very different to me.

[Dr. Gonzo]

37 minutes ago, Dan said:

They've named the 9 teams currently on the longest runs in the Premier League. Southampton & West Ham came up in 2012 and Aston Villa only came up a year or so ago. They've deliberately cut it off there to assist with the rigging.

I actually think if this goes through I probably won't renew my season ticket. I just don't see the point anymore. We're capped at what we can achieve.

American owners are the worst. I don't really follow American sports but not far off every American owner in English football has been absolutely dreadful. They view it all very different to me.

It’s because they don’t care about the sport at all really, just the money

[RandoEFC+]

The problem with American sport is that the celebrity culture in that country is worse than anywhere else and it predates any of their major sporting divisions being fully formed which results in the sport being built around celebrity culture. In Europe, sport existed long before the internet and big money television allowed this cancerous culture to spread across the land. At least our sport isn't born out of the cult of celebrity but it is slowly being absorbed by it.

[Smiley Culture]

6 hours ago, Dan said:

They've named the 9 teams currently on the longest runs in the Premier League. Southampton & West Ham came up in 2012 and Aston Villa only came up a year or so ago. They've deliberately cut it off there to assist with the rigging.

I actually think if this goes through I probably won't renew my season ticket. I just don't see the point anymore. We're capped at what we can achieve.

American owners are the worst. I don't really follow American sports but not far off every American owner in English football has been absolutely dreadful. They view it all very different to me.

The cynic in me thinks they’ve been quite strategic about this. 

Everton - rich, new ground coming and want to break into that big six. 

Southampton - Moved to a more European model this summer, changing their U23’s to a B team and seem to operate how most do in Europe. 

West Ham - Easy vote. Get those poisonous little bastards involved and they’ll grab on to the coat tails of this for dear life. 

However, the three are interchangeable. Everton say no, they move on to Leicester, recent PL winners that aren’t the “big six” and almost identical to the reasons I said above for Everton. 

West Ham will cling on to this, I’m certain. But if they don’t, what other crappy owner could they target, who’ll do anything to retain Premier League status? Newcastle, of course. 

Southampton can be switched out for Wolves, who’d, I’m sure, love a say on matters and can splash the cash, which I’m sure the big six would welcome, but only to a point. 

[RandoEFC+]

6 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

The cynic in me thinks they’ve been quite strategic about this. 

Everton - rich, new ground coming and want to break into that big six. 

Southampton - Moved to a more European model this summer, changing their U23’s to a B team and seem to operate how most do in Europe. 

West Ham - Easy vote. Get those poisonous little bastards involved and they’ll grab on to the coat tails of this for dear life. 

However, the three are interchangeable. Everton say no, they move on to Leicester, recent PL winners that aren’t the “big six” and almost identical to the reasons I said above for Everton. 

West Ham will cling on to this, I’m certain. But if they don’t, what other crappy owner could they target, who’ll do anything to retain Premier League status? Newcastle, of course. 

Southampton can be switched out for Wolves, who’d, I’m sure, love a say on matters and can splash the cash, which I’m sure the big six would welcome, but only to a point. 

They can't just "move on" to other teams. They've come up with a criteria because they know they have to make it so that technically you have to earn those voting rights by remaining in the top flight. Under the proposals, Arsenal for example would fall out of the chosen nine if they got relegated then came back up.

They can't just go, alright, these 9 teams are the ones who have agreed to this so they're now the elite ones. Remember they have to get 14 votes from the current 20 members and there's not a chance they achieve that if they just choose the 9 clubs who get the voting rights because 11 of the clubs who have to vote in favour of it will never get into that self-selected elite group. The whole thing falls apart without leaving the door ajar for the "little clubs" to naively believe they could be a part of the chosen few one day. The whole thing could have been written by the actual Tories.

[Smiley Culture]

7 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

They can't just "move on" to other teams. They've come up with a criteria because they know they have to make it so that technically you have to earn those voting rights by remaining in the top flight. Under the proposals, Arsenal for example would fall out of the chosen nine if they got relegated then came back up.

They can't just go, alright, these 9 teams are the ones who have agreed to this so they're now the elite ones. Remember they have to get 14 votes from the current 20 members and there's not a chance they achieve that if they just choose the 9 clubs who get the voting rights because 11 of the clubs who have to vote in favour of it will never get into that self-selected elite group. The whole thing falls apart without leaving the door ajar for the "little clubs" to naively believe they could be a part of the chosen few one day. The whole thing could have been written by the actual Tories.

It’s funny that you think they won’t just bend their rulings and criteria to suit their personal gains. 

[The Artful Dodger]

There are some stand alone ideas which are not bad (wealth redistribution etc) but even the most naive person can see the cynical motivation behind it. I would say it has no chance of succeeding but the 'big 5' managed to get the Premier League through so I wouldn't say definitely not.

Be good if we're more like the NBA, NFL though...

[Smiley Culture]

Quote

Explained: United, Liverpool and Parry spark ‘nuclear war’ in English football

English football was plunged into civil war this weekend after the Football League Chairman Rick Parry, in collaboration with leading clubs Manchester United and Liverpool, presented an extraordinary proposal to reimagine the sport in this country.

Under a string of radical proposals that the Premier League warned could have a “damaging impact” on the national game, a leaked document entitled “Project Big Picture” suggested reducing the number of top-flight clubs from 20 to 18, ditching the Community Shield and Carabao Cup, reinventing the Championship play-off system and removing equal voting rights in the top-flight.

On the flip side, the proposal, described by EFL Chairman Parry as “the right way forward”, would also immediately hand Football League clubs a £250 million bailout to cover lost matchday income, hand £10 million grants to the Women’s Super League and Championship, and provide a £35 million grant to the FA for the National League and the grassroots game, and £55 million to cover the governing body’s operational losses.

However, the idea has immediately provoked fury from the Premier League and the British government, who have both negotiated with the Football League in recent weeks to secure a bailout. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a scathing attack on the proposal, saying it was “surprised and disappointed” to hear about a “backroom deal cooked up” by the respective parties.

It is understood Manchester United’s owners, the Glazer family, have been in talks with Parry, and the same is true of Liverpool’s lead owner John W Henry, as well as shareholder Mike Gordon. The talks have been ongoing for three years between the parties, and Parry claimed on Sunday that Chelsea have also been involved in talks for some time. Liverpool and United fully informed their top-six rivals Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and Manchester City of the proposals last week and on Sunday, the news of the groundbreaking plan broke in the Daily Telegraph.

As things stand, any change to Premier League regulations requires fourteen votes or more under a one member, one vote system. Yet Premier League clubs were further incensed by suggestions that Parry had encouraged leading top-flight clubs to simply resign from the top-flight and join the Football League in the event they lost the vote.

Parry, remarkably, refused to comment on this allegation during a hastily-organised press conference on Sunday and several sources admitted that the nuclear option of breaking away from the Premier League is possible in “extraordinary times”. Due to ongoing contractual obligations, this would leave leading clubs such as Liverpool and United open to legal action from their Premier League rivals. Neither club were prepared to comment on Sunday.

In the Premier League handbook, under regulation B.7, any club intending to resign as a member of the League ahead of a new season may do so by writing to the league’s secretary before December 31 of the previous campaign. Sources close to the top six insisted there have been no threats at all to break away.

At the heart of the issue is that the leading six clubs believe they deserve more power at the table because they generate the majority of revenue and interest in the English game. The fundamental obstacle is the bottom 14 clubs and persuading them to vote for something that appears counter to their own interests.

Premier League clubs below the top six were said to have considered this plan a “hostile takeover” rather than a proposal, as they were kept out of the loop. One source close to the big six conceded it should be seen either as a “coup or a revolution”. The big fear among opponents is that the concentrating of voting power in the hands of a select group of clubs could see them renege on promises of solidarity made within these proposals.

Those are not the only objections, though. One source described the Premier League, its leading clubs, the Football League and the government as being in “nuclear warfare” on Sunday evening, while there were also question marks over what the proposals mean for the women’s game. As English football licks its wounds, The Athletic sets out the proposals, who is in favour and who is steadfastly opposed to the game-changing plans.

What is Project Big Picture?

On Sunday morning, the Daily Telegraph published details of an 18-page document that set out a new vision for football in England.

English football is currently beset by an economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and negotiations between the Premier League, Football League and government have been rumbling on for several months as lower league clubs, shorn of matchday income and reduced sponsorship income, are threatened with extinction.

On the face of it, Project Big Picture includes several encouraging proposals. Most crucially, it would immediately present £250 million to the Football League, as well as a cumulative £100 million fund to the FA to cover losses and provide investment for the women’s game, the National League and grassroots football. This would provide a short-term cash injection to resuscitate an ailing sport. On a long-term level, EFL finances would be boosted by a new way of sharing the Premier League’s vast income.

Premier League clubs currently receive 92 per cent of distributable revenues but this would be reduced to 75 per cent under the proposals, as 25 per cent would instead go to the EFL. This would raise Championship income per club by £15.5 million, League One income by £3.5 million and League Two income by £2.3 million. While handing such a large share to the EFL would be a historic move there is no guarantee that finances would remain as appealing as they are at present, given an 18-team Premier League would have fewer of its own games to sell.

For supporters, away tickets would be capped at £20, away travel would be subsidised and there would be further exploration of safe standing.

The big six clubs, however, will be getting plenty in return. The Community Shield and the Carabao Cup, often seen as a burden to leading sides, will be axed altogether. In addition, the number of Premier League fixtures will be reduced from 38 to 34 in an 18-team division. The revised Premier League relegation system would see the bottom two clubs automatically relegated and the top two clubs in the Championship promoted. The third bottom Premier League side would then enter a four-way play-off with the third, fourth and fifth-placed Championship sides to secure a place in the top-flight the following season.

Parry speculated on Sunday that there would be a single campaign, ahead of the proposed 2022-23 start date, where the Premier League would relegate four sides and the Championship would only promote two. “This would be give-and-take from the Premier League and Championship,” he explained.

Controversially, the new proposals would guarantee voting rights to the nine clubs who, at any given moment, have spent the longest extended period in the top-flight. This would currently be the established top six, plus Southampton, West Ham and Everton. The document says that it would take only an agreement of two-thirds of the “long-term stakeholders”, in effect six teams, to legislate over several key issues, including vetoing prospective new owners of other Premier League clubs, the Premier League CEO position itself and how broadcasting income is distributed, as well as competition rules.

The proposal also suggests a hard salary cap for the Championship, League One and League Two, while clubs would also be forced to comply with UEFA-style Financial Fair Play regulations. There are further advantages proposed for top clubs, for instance how a Premier League side would be able to loan out fifteen players at once, including four players to the same club and recall loanees if the manager changes. Clubs would also be allowed to sell exclusive rights to eight of their live matches per season direct to supporters via digital platforms in all international territories.

So who is behind Project Big Picture? 

On Sunday, the question of who exactly the authored the document remained in question but it has been worked on for up to three years by Joel Glazer, the co-owner of Manchester United, along with John W Henry, Liverpool’s lead investor. The Athletic also understands that Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck has been heavily involved in discussions for quite some time. Liverpool and United formally presented the proposals to their top-six rivals Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City on Thursday, with a view to continuing discussions over the weekend. Different sources attributed each of Henry, Glazer, Parry and United’s executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward with the credit for writing sections of the document but it was difficult to establish anyone prepared to take ultimate responsibility.

Yet even after the story emerged, infuriating Premier League clubs and the government, sources close to the proposal insisted on Sunday night that its creators are refusing to back down and want to push this through.

They have on their side the EFL chairman Parry, who is formerly the CEO of the Premier League and his backing for this idea stretches back as far as 1995. The key tenet is to bundle together the television rights for the Premier League and Football League and redistribute 25 per cent to the EFL. Indeed, while being interviewed to be EFL chairman ahead of winning the role in 2019, Parry pitched this exact concept and was supported in the room by the current Burton Albion chief executive Jez Moxey.

The plan has been driven by Glazer and Henry, although Parry, the EFL board and the FA Chairman Greg Clarke have all, at different times, been privy to conversations on the issue. The FA, curiously, did not formally comment on Sunday but it was mentioned in the Premier League’s own statement, implying the two bodies are united in opposition.

The Athletic has learnt the proposal was first intended to be launched quite some time ago, indeed the current working document is version 18, and Parry would have liked to begin the campaign in April, only for the pandemic to hold off the discussion.

Cynics will raise their eyebrows but sources close to Liverpool’s Henry and United’s Glazer insisted they see the romance of English football’s pyramid and have regularly, during discussions, spoken of a responsibility to protect lower league clubs. One source said Woodward “is often on the side of the angels” when it comes to supporters’ issues and lower league clubs, and he too has been keen to drive the proposals forward. Critics will certainly point to the Glazer family’s record of alienating United supporters with a leveraged takeover deal.

Who supports the proposal and why?

It is now clear that Liverpool and Manchester United are significant advocates of the deal, along with Chelsea. Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City have all been privy to discussions but their individual positions are unclear. Sources close to the overall project suggested on Sunday that the top six sides are broadly supportive.

Elsewhere, Football League chairman Parry is spearheading the support on behalf of his 72 clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two. It is understood that the vast majority of League One and Two clubs see the benefit of the proposals both in terms of the short-term bailout of £250 million, in addition to a more equitable distribution of television money in the long-term. The government has been considering a £100 million package to bail out matchday losses for League One, League Two and the National League combined but the EFL believes it needs £250 million to complete this’s season’s fixtures and avoid clubs going bust.

One executive at a League One club explains: “The EFL is in such a bad position, something has gone wrong, it can’t continue. Who is coming up with a solution? Nobody, except for Manchester United and Liverpool. There is disagreement on everything in the EFL and we never get a consensus, whether it is resuming the league after lockdown or doing the play-offs. We never get anywhere. Time is not on our side and if stays this way, clubs will go bust.

“So yes, we are at the mercy of really rich guys, but it is good someone is taking initiative, as everything else on the table is so limited.

“Is it a disaster to have more power for top six? Doesn’t every industry have big players? This proposal will make clubs be more stable in lower leagues and now it will make more sense to own a lower league club. This will save many clubs from going bust.

“The government won’t bail us out long term. They are very conscious of the cosmetics of supporting an industry that has a lot of money and spends fortunes on players. They will do a short-term solution to cover matchday losses but the average League One side is still losing £3 million (a season), with or without COVID-19. United’s idea gives us security in the long term.”

Fleetwood Town owner Andy Pilley described it as a “fantastic proposal that will save EFL clubs from oblivion”.

There was also a warning that the alternative options may be far worse. Barnsley co-chairman Paul Conway told The Athletic: “Project Big Picture would judiciously reallocate more media revenue to the EFL and hopefully reign in the reckless spending which endangers the entire EFL.

“With the planned expansion of UEFA to include a third competition after the Champions League and Europa League, it is conceivable that up to 10 EPL teams could be playing in UEFA competitions during the season totalling 60 group stage matches and then the knockout matches.

“If the smaller Premier League clubs do not accept Project Big Picture it is entirely conceivable that the bigger Premier League clubs go along with the push of other big UEFA clubs to move UEFA matches to the weekend resulting in 60 to 80 Premier League matches forced to be moved to mid-week, which would hurt the smaller Premier League teams as these are typically their biggest grossing match days.

“The bigger Premier League clubs aim to grow their global brand either through Project Big Picture or other alternatives. The global football audience prefers to watch Liverpool play Bayern Munich versus Liverpool play Burnley.”

Parry also insisted on Sunday that he has the support of many of his members, even including some in the Championship who may have been considered sceptics as the number of Premier League places would be reduced.

Parry said: “From the comments from clubs today to me, it is a surprise to them, but it feels like unity and the professional game reuniting for the first time since the formation of the Premier League. It is hard to imagine another proposal coming close.”

Who opposes the proposal and why?

This is where it gets tasty. If the big six are to push these proposals through conventionally, they require 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to vote in favour. Yet, why would they? Many clubs start the season with one eye over their shoulders and are worried, first and foremost, about staying in the top flight. Reducing the numbers to 18 makes this considerably harder.

In addition, there are concerns that parachute payments would stop for those clubs relegated from the top flight, while the changes to Premier League voting rights have raised alarm bells. Currently, any changes to top-flight regulations demand 14 votes in favour and every team has a vote. Yet the United and Liverpool proposal insists that only the nine longest-serving Premier League clubs, at any given time, would be given a vote. This would include matters such as the distribution of television income but also more trivial footballing issues, such as the recently hotly disputed five substitutions rule which was adopted during lockdown but then banished for the new season. This has led to fears from some opposing clubs alleging it is a power grab.

Essentially, therefore, the proposals penalise the clubs who fear Premier League relegation and also ambitious Football League outfits who would like to gamble their way towards the top flight. The Premier League’s central power base was, therefore, left furious after being cut out of the talks.

Parry admitted broadcasters had not been consulted, and said: “The Premier League could have come up with proposals at any stage or solved the short-term issue on rescue funding a lot quicker. For whatever reason, they have not. Am I ashamed to back a bold plan? No. They talk about the need for collaboration. How long has it taken to get short-term rescue package to the starting gate? Months. The government said they needed the Premier League to step up to the plate in May.”

The Premier League, however, approached the Football League during lockdown, warning they would need to finish their own season before organising the terms of the bail-out. This was because the top-flight could have faced its own meltdown if forced to return in excess of £750 million to broadcasters in a hefty rebate. As such, sources say that the Premier League then invited the Football League for talks last month, where they felt the EFL were not overly engaged. Only on Sunday did the Premier League discover that Parry was working with two of their biggest clubs about an extraordinary rebrand.

Indeed, Parry was asked on Sunday if it was true he had invited the big six clubs to quit the Premier League and simply form another league under the Football League banner. He declined to comment.

The Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters is said to have been working around the clock to secure a consensus for a Premier League bailout but he wants a deal that protects all the top-flight’s members, rather than placing excessive power into the hands of a select few clubs. Both the Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman and CEO Masters were cut out of the secret talks, angering several clubs.

There are also concerns that the document insists on 34 weekend fixtures for the Premier League, therefore opening the door for an enhanced Champions League, as devised by Juventus’ owner Andrea Agnelli, while some Premier League club executives also fear the FA Cup will become a midweek competition. Parry rejects this view, saying the removal of the Carabao Cup will renew the “lustre” of the competition. Sources close to the proposals also insisted the FA Cup would remain a weekend tournament.

The anger was palpable. The Premier League issued a strongly-worded statement saying discussions “should be carried out through the proper channels” and a number of proposals “could have a damaging impact on the whole game”. “We are disappointed to see that Rick Parry, Chair of the EFL, has given his on-the-record support,” they added.

One Premier League club source described the developments as dispiriting. Another Premier League club executive was furious he had discovered the news on a newspaper website. “It has never been mentioned to us,” they said. “That’s why it’s such a disgrace. Same old thing. Big clubs working out ways where they get to keep the money and the power. The other clubs will come down on Woodward like a ton of bricks.”

A different Premier League source said it was yet another attempt by the big six to create more space in the calendar for European competitions, while other sources said the proposed UEFA-style Financial Fair Play restrictions would make it nigh-on impossible for a new owner to ever spend significantly enough to gatecrash the elite. In addition, the top six clubs alone, under revised governance rules, could themselves veto a takeover from a rich investor they perceive as a threat.

Meanwhile, not all Championship clubs are as united as Parry suggested. Sources close to clubs with immediate ambitions to be promoted to the Premier League described them as “highly unimpressed” on Sunday and hit out at the “greed” of the established elite. Indeed, one club in the lower tiers was actively opposed, with their chairman saying: “Effectively it will crystallise the power of the big six in perpetuity and also lead to the formation of a Premier League 2, with an increased gap between that and League One. The detail is still missing but the timing is classic exploitation of the short-term crisis with a few dog bones to smooth the transition.”

A Championship chief executive cautioned: “It may be easy to get the buy-in from the EFL but I doubt it has enough votes to pass in the Premier League. Fulham, Burnley, West Brom, Sheffield United, Leeds, Palace and Brighton would have no interest in backing this.”

One of his Championship peers added: “But I’ll keep an open mind as we assess it. The clear losers are the lower half of the Premier League, who have got far too big for their boots.”

What happens next?

A battle for public opinion will now play out. The Conservative government has already laid out its opposition in no uncertain terms.

A spokesperson for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: “We are surprised and disappointed that at a time of crisis when we have urged the top tiers of professional football to come together and finalise a deal to help lower league clubs there appear to be backroom deals being cooked up that would create a closed shop at the very top of the game.”

There is also concern in some quarters over the lack of detail in the proposals for the women’s game. The document, seen by The Athletic, says that a working group will be set up to develop and establish a new independent league for women’s professional football in England, not to be owned by the Premier League or the FA. This perhaps opens the door to private equity funding for the women’s game or a sponsor-led initiative but this would seem a high-risk approach when the game requires guaranteed income. The proposals do include a £10 million bailout for the Women’s Super League and Championship, in addition to a pledge of more than £50 million per annum for the WSL, Championship, Women’s FA Cup and women’s grassroots funding.

Over Zoom calls and a private WhatsApp group, the big six clubs remained embroiled in negotiations on Sunday and there was no sign of an immediate climbdown. Attention will turn to The FA, as its chairman Clarke has been aware of these discussions. The FA has a golden share in the Premier League and therefore the ability to veto changes to regulations on promotion or relegation. It could kill the proposals before they are even off the ground. The FA is still to outline a clear position but the Premier League, which mentioned a shared desire between themselves and the FA to find a solution in their statement on Sunday, is hopeful the governing body will fall in line.

The matter will be discussed at a no doubt intense Premier League meeting this week and could, in theory, be put to a vote that requires 14 or more in support to approve. “Even if they don’t get that vote,” one source insisted, “they will keep pushing this. They want this to happen.”

Parry remained confident despite the government knockback. “It does not make it a non-starter. The merits still shine through. Fans have been considered and it is about saving the pyramid. I find it hard to reconcile our thoughts and the government position. It will not deter us. It is hard to imagine another deal coming close.”

The Athletic article. 

[RandoEFC+]

8 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

It’s funny that you think they won’t just bend their rulings and criteria to suit their personal gains. 

They can bend and manipulate whatever they want, but they have to put a proposal on the table that tricks 8 of the other 16 clubs in the league to vote with them. If they could just do whatever they wanted they'd just do it. If it was that easy Abramovich and the Sheikhs would have sorted it all out themselves ages ago. If they come to the table with a proposal that Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Everton, Wolves and Crystal Palace get tier 1 voting rights indefinitely based on the criteria that they're the 9 clubs that agreed to be a part of it, the other 11 clubs will just vote against it and it will fail.

Football is heavily corrupt but we're not quite at the point where an absolute coup can just be pulled off unchallenged in broad daylight. Democracy still exists in the Premier League which is why they've had to make so many "good" proposals like the subsidised away travel a part of the reform. You don't have to go past the down-sizing of the league to realise that they're asking turkeys to vote for Christmas here. Losing two teams means that at some point, 5 times have to be relegated from the league instead of 3. Any team outside the top six and possible Everton, Leicester and Wolves are taking an incredibly reckless risk if they vote in favour of that so would need a lot of buttering up to consider it.

[Dave]

I actually like the suggestions in this model other than the obvious power ploy for the top six. 18 over 20 teams wouldn't bother me. The playoffs in Germany are exciting if we are heading to a similar model. Most importantly, the reason so many clubs are on financial disarray and will always carry a huge debt in The Championship is because of the reckless chase for the PL Golden Egg. Distributing the money across the EFL creates a far more balanced and competitive further down the football pyramid. 

I can't see it going through. No way will the clubs outside the big six vote on it. West Ham, Everton and Southampton will be aware there two thirds vote does not matter.

[Smiley Culture]

26 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I actually like the suggestions in this model other than the obvious power ploy for the top six. 18 over 20 teams wouldn't bother me. The playoffs in Germany are exciting if we are heading to a similar model. Most importantly, the reason so many clubs are on financial disarray and will always carry a huge debt in The Championship is because of the reckless chase for the PL Golden Egg. Distributing the money across the EFL creates a far more balanced and competitive further down the football pyramid. 

I can't see it going through. No way will the clubs outside the big six vote on it. West Ham, Everton and Southampton will be aware there two thirds vote does not matter.

There’s no way this would change the way in which Championship club’s operate. If anything, I think it would exacerbate it. 

[ScoRoss]

Doing away with parachute payments and enforcing 'UEFA style FFP' would only increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

They've realised this new television deal has lessened the financial gap between them and the 'lesser' clubs. By dividing that fund up further, it relies more on commercial revenue rather than television money.

[Smiley Culture]

West Ham are allegedly against this idea, it seems. 

Hopefully, for all the stuff they do wrong as a club, and that’s a long list, they fight this. 

[Rick]

I hope there plenty of clubs against it. Hopefully it’s thrown out. Sickened off that it’s our owners that have proposed it. 
 

There are some good ideas in it, but at the bottom of it all is too much money and power to the top clubs. It’ll bring us closer to this “super league” that keeps being mentioned around Europe. If (and likely when) that happens, I think it’ll be the nail in the coffin for me. 

[RandoEFC+]

The majority of it is really positive for the sustainability of the football model, so that the next time a crisis like this pandemic hits (hopefully not in our lifetimes), there won't be clubs in the EFL living hand to mouth and ultimately being brought to their knees by it. I just wish I could believe that the owners in question would back these parts of the proposal without it being conditional on the other parts that stand to benefit them.

I have no major issue with reducing the size of the league to 18 instead of 20. The main problem is how do you do it? At some point it means you have to relegate 5 teams instead of 3 so teams that finish 16th and 17th will get relegated one year when they usually wouldn't. Are Crystal Palace or Aston Villa or Brighton going to vote in favour of that?

Abolishing the Community Shield just seems pointless. It's one game, a friendly, a traditional curtain-raiser and it's for a good cause. What does it get in the way of other than an extra few days raking in extra sponsor money in the US or the Middle East? Oh look, I answered my own question.

Getting rid of the League Cup would be a disgrace for me. I know it's a bit Mickey Mouse these days because of fixture congestion but there is something to be said for tradition and I think it's a really valuable thing that we have two major domestic cups in England. Just because most other major footballing countries don't, doesn't automatically mean it's better not to.

[DeadLinesman]

59 minutes ago, Rick said:

I hope there plenty of clubs against it. Hopefully it’s thrown out. Sickened off that it’s our owners that have proposed it. 
 

There are some good ideas in it, but at the bottom of it all is too much money and power to the top clubs. It’ll bring us closer to this “super league” that keeps being mentioned around Europe. If (and likely when) that happens, I think it’ll be the nail in the coffin for me. 

Guaranteed it was led by the Glazers, but somehow you’ve been given the lead. Slimy fucking cunts. 

[Stan]

31 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

The majority of it is really positive for the sustainability of the football model, so that the next time a crisis like this pandemic hits (hopefully not in our lifetimes), there won't be clubs in the EFL living hand to mouth and ultimately being brought to their knees by it. I just wish I could believe that the owners in question would back these parts of the proposal without it being conditional on the other parts that stand to benefit them.

I have no major issue with reducing the size of the league to 18 instead of 20. The main problem is how do you do it? At some point it means you have to relegate 5 teams instead of 3 so teams that finish 16th and 17th will get relegated one year when they usually wouldn't. Are Crystal Palace or Aston Villa or Brighton going to vote in favour of that?

Abolishing the Community Shield just seems pointless. It's one game, a friendly, a traditional curtain-raiser and it's for a good cause. What does it get in the way of other than an extra few days raking in extra sponsor money in the US or the Middle East? Oh look, I answered my own question.

Getting rid of the League Cup would be a disgrace for me. I know it's a bit Mickey Mouse these days because of fixture congestion but there is something to be said for tradition and I think it's a really valuable thing that we have two major domestic cups in England. Just because most other major footballing countries don't, doesn't automatically mean it's better not to.

Or relegate 2 and have no promotion from the Championship (which is never going to take off given it's often lauded as the 'richest prize in football').

Could still relegate 3, have the winner of the Championship promoted and that's it, no play-offs for one season. That's more rewarding to the best team in that league and perhaps more favourable than the above option. 

I'm torn on the League Cup. I think to keep any kind of integrity about the competition, and give it some likelihood there'll be a different winner each season and therefore the 'hope' for clubs to take it seriously, is to keep it in place but allow clubs in Europe for that season to forego any participation in it. It'll mean there's less for the clubs in Europe to worry about with bigger fish to fry and escape any criticism of 'not taking it seriously' by not being in it. It hopefully will also mean all the other clubs, PL especially, will take it seriously knowing they have a realistic chance of winning it. 

[Lucas]

For me, the League Cup is long dead. It's just not what it was in the 90's and early 00's when teams really tried from the get go. Not fussed if it went at all.

I would like to think if we lost it, it would only put greater emphasis on making the FA Cup stronger as the sole domestic cup competition and possibly help protect the replays that the smaller clubs would prefer.

It doesn't sit right with me that a team 3rd bottom in the PL could stay up by winning a playoff final at Wembley against a side thats finished 3rd in the Championship and had a far more successful year. That idea would seriously need to grow on me because right now I would hate that.

The other thing I'm curious about is how the bigger clubs in particular have pushed for a winter break for ages and if they shortened the league to 18 teams, that's 4 rounds of games they lose that would help generate that happen. And yet instead they want to use it to play more Champions League/European Super League games? Seems incredible double standards.

[Smiley Culture]

48 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

The majority of it is really positive for the sustainability of the football model, so that the next time a crisis like this pandemic hits (hopefully not in our lifetimes), there won't be clubs in the EFL living hand to mouth and ultimately being brought to their knees by it. I just wish I could believe that the owners in question would back these parts of the proposal without it being conditional on the other parts that stand to benefit them.

I have no major issue with reducing the size of the league to 18 instead of 20. The main problem is how do you do it? At some point it means you have to relegate 5 teams instead of 3 so teams that finish 16th and 17th will get relegated one year when they usually wouldn't. Are Crystal Palace or Aston Villa or Brighton going to vote in favour of that?

Abolishing the Community Shield just seems pointless. It's one game, a friendly, a traditional curtain-raiser and it's for a good cause. What does it get in the way of other than an extra few days raking in extra sponsor money in the US or the Middle East? Oh look, I answered my own question.

Getting rid of the League Cup would be a disgrace for me. I know it's a bit Mickey Mouse these days because of fixture congestion but there is something to be said for tradition and I think it's a really valuable thing that we have two major domestic cups in England. Just because most other major footballing countries don't, doesn't automatically mean it's better not to.

I really don’t get the sustainability angle that they’re trying to paint here. It’s effectively, “here’s some money for your vote, now go away, peasants”. I’m not sure how this is any more sustainable than what we have now. 

 

[Dan+]

13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It’s because they don’t care about the sport at all really, just the money

That's essentially what I was getting at. Don't really have a gripe with USA but their perspective on sport is chalk and cheese with ours, and I feel like we're changing ours to be more like theirs. It's why I was always a bit concerned about the rise in popularity of NFL over here.

[Dan+]

7 hours ago, Smiley Culture said:

The cynic in me thinks they’ve been quite strategic about this. 

Everton - rich, new ground coming and want to break into that big six. 

Southampton - Moved to a more European model this summer, changing their U23’s to a B team and seem to operate how most do in Europe. 

West Ham - Easy vote. Get those poisonous little bastards involved and they’ll grab on to the coat tails of this for dear life. 

However, the three are interchangeable. Everton say no, they move on to Leicester, recent PL winners that aren’t the “big six” and almost identical to the reasons I said above for Everton. 

West Ham will cling on to this, I’m certain. But if they don’t, what other crappy owner could they target, who’ll do anything to retain Premier League status? Newcastle, of course. 

Southampton can be switched out for Wolves, who’d, I’m sure, love a say on matters and can splash the cash, which I’m sure the big six would welcome, but only to a point. 

Leicester would be 11th under their current model, with Crystal Palace being 10th as they came into the league a year before us. I could see it though - I think our owners want us to be in the 'elite'. The vote against the PPV was a very good move from LCFC but we have made a couple in the past that concerned me.

They'll do whatever to try and ensure the league is a monopoly. It's headed that way anyway but this would be definitive proof that football is genuinely dead as a sport.

There is literally nothing impressive about doing well in a monopolised league. Anyone genuinely impressed by it must be off their head.

[Dan+]

7 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

They can't just "move on" to other teams. They've come up with a criteria because they know they have to make it so that technically you have to earn those voting rights by remaining in the top flight. Under the proposals, Arsenal for example would fall out of the chosen nine if they got relegated then came back up.

They can't just go, alright, these 9 teams are the ones who have agreed to this so they're now the elite ones. Remember they have to get 14 votes from the current 20 members and there's not a chance they achieve that if they just choose the 9 clubs who get the voting rights because 11 of the clubs who have to vote in favour of it will never get into that self-selected elite group. The whole thing falls apart without leaving the door ajar for the "little clubs" to naively believe they could be a part of the chosen few one day. The whole thing could have been written by the actual Tories.

Wouldn't be surprised if corrupt officials helped getting anyone who went against the wishes of the 'big 6' relegated as well. Southampton the obvious contender. I genuinely think that's the level of nonsense you're dealing with here.

[Smiley Culture]

Rebates on new grounds as well? Bloody hell, can’t the remaining 86 just fuck these six off for good? 

[Dave]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

The majority of it is really positive for the sustainability of the football model, so that the next time a crisis like this pandemic hits (hopefully not in our lifetimes), there won't be clubs in the EFL living hand to mouth and ultimately being brought to their knees by it. I just wish I could believe that the owners in question would back these parts of the proposal without it being conditional on the other parts that stand to benefit them.

I have no major issue with reducing the size of the league to 18 instead of 20. The main problem is how do you do it? At some point it means you have to relegate 5 teams instead of 3 so teams that finish 16th and 17th will get relegated one year when they usually wouldn't. Are Crystal Palace or Aston Villa or Brighton going to vote in favour of that?

Abolishing the Community Shield just seems pointless. It's one game, a friendly, a traditional curtain-raiser and it's for a good cause. What does it get in the way of other than an extra few days raking in extra sponsor money in the US or the Middle East? Oh look, I answered my own question.

Getting rid of the League Cup would be a disgrace for me. I know it's a bit Mickey Mouse these days because of fixture congestion but there is something to be said for tradition and I think it's a really valuable thing that we have two major domestic cups in England. Just because most other major footballing countries don't, doesn't automatically mean it's better not to.

There's no way we will vote in favour of it. I imagine Steve Parish, whose often been a mouthpiece for PL owners during this pandemic, will feel rather embarrassed that a couple of days after his speech causing further separation between PL and EFL clubs that the big two see his club as more of a corner shop as opposed to a supermarket.

[Bluebird Hewitt]

On 11/10/2020 at 14:04, The Palace Fan said:

 

2 hours ago, Smiley Culture said:

Rebates on new grounds as well? Bloody hell, can’t the remaining 86 just fuck these six off for good? 

I've probably missed it in here or just haven't seen it on BBC, but where did you hear about the new owner veto and the rebates for new grounds?