Shake up of Premier league

[BigFish 1,986]

26 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Two questions-

Why are Leicester not included in the +3? They’ve won the Premiership in the last 5 years and have a better recent record in those 5 years than West Ham and Southampton.

Why has Parry highlighted the amount that the bottom 14 teams received in 2018/19 in comparison to the Championship clubs? Why not highlight the amount that the top 6 received?

First, the admittedly arbitrary criteria used was the number of Premiership Seasons completed e.g Everton 29, West Ham 25 & Southampton 22 to Leicester's 15. Secondly, who knows? Maybe to indicate the gulf between those making up the numbers and the Champs.

[BigFish 1,986]

Just now, king canary said:

You seem to dismiss any reasonable question of what the top 6 would do with this new found power with this same sweeping statement. It remains a baffling naive mindset considering these clubs have gone out of their way to minimise the money they have to give to the EFL.

Except this isn't true, is it? They have offered up 25% of the TV money when there is nothing to compel them to offer anything. Plus the one-off Covid payment of £250m. In fact the Prem offered 20% to the EFL back in 1995 and the EFL turned it down.

This debate continues to be bogged down in Straw man arguments whether you like it or not. Perhaps you should look closely at the benefits rather than the invention of hypotheticals. The 6+3 governance is unlikely to get Premier League approval and all agreements can include applicable periods. At least this shows some solidarity with the lower leagues.

The Champions League format is up for revision in 2024 and when the current media contracts expire the Prem could play much harder ball than this. Steve Parish is already asking why the Premier League should give the rest of football anything.

[king canary 7,578]

21 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Except this isn't true, is it? They have offered up 25% of the TV money when there is nothing to compel them to offer anything. Plus the one-off Covid payment of £250m. In fact the Prem offered 20% to the EFL back in 1995 and the EFL turned it down.

This debate continues to be bogged down in Straw man arguments whether you like it or not. Perhaps you should look closely at the benefits rather than the invention of hypotheticals. The 6+3 governance is unlikely to get Premier League approval and all agreements can include applicable periods. At least this shows some solidarity with the lower leagues.

The Champions League format is up for revision in 2024 and when the current media contracts expire the Prem could play much harder ball than this. Steve Parish is already asking why the Premier League should give the rest of football anything.

It is true. The biggest clubs have, for years, fought to bring down the amount they give to smaller clubs. Solidarity payments have gone steadily down over the years. (https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/champions-league-super-clubs-liverpool-man-utd-barcelona-real-madrid-a9334826.html for some evidence). 

So the question is why the sudden change of tune? Discussions anout this plan have reportedly been going on since 2017/18 so it isnt just the current pandemic.

It could be that the likes of the Glazers, FSG and Stan Kronke have suddenly come over all altruistic and want to help out the little guy. Or it could be that the money is less important to them than the power grab of the 6+3 voting.

Now if you want to believe that these arch capitalists aren't looking at this as an opportunity to cement their power then thats your perogative- its also beyond naive.

Edited October 13, 2020 by king canary

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

Stop it.

You have refused to accept any criticism of the deal really and have been totally up for it no questions asked. Yet the only real answer you have is "well, it's an offer, we can start with that offer and tweak it". 

Yet so far, the finer detail is revealing more and more that is wrong with this deal. As much as he is an ex scummer Jon Walters has responded to it on twitter with some good detail.

There are so many issues. As highlighted, currently the deal says 25% of EPL income to EFL. But it then says the top 9 clubs would be able to vote on things like "distribution of TV money". Yet the traditional big money deals for football could be slowly on the way out. We have already seen one big investor withdraw their money. Much of the TV deals is based upon viewing numbers and advertisements.

Now, back when there were fewer channels, the tech was more expensive and all of this was new - eg the 1990's, this was effectively outsourcing a service not otherwise available. However, now, in 2020, most people can broadcast live from their houses. Honestly, how long before those big 6 teams realise that it is better for them to have their own broadcasting service, get all of that advertisement money straight into their pockets, cutting out the middle man, and stepping out of any coverage deal?

I don't think we are far away at all. At that point the cumulative deals for league will dwindle and fall away. And what will be left is the top six in a brilliant position having bought the EFL's support with a couple of years of 25%.

The 25% is not guaranteed. It isn't set in stone. And it means very little. It's around £10million per club if shared equally. Sure, at the bottom end of the EFL that is a large amount. But in reality it's that big an amount. Especially if you have just been relegated from the prem and no longer get parachute payments.

It really is a crap deal.

The only part that looks good, and it really is the only part, is the £250million now to help EFL clubs. Nothing else secures the long term future of the EFL, and only goes to ensure the long term commercial futures of 6 teams.

That encapsulates the double problem. It may be 25 per cent of a decreasing amount and there is no guarantee it will continue once the Big Six have got what they want.

[BigFish 1,986]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

It is true. The biggest clubs have, for years, fought to bring down the amount they give to smaller clubs. Solidarity payments have gone steadily down over the years. (https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/champions-league-super-clubs-liverpool-man-utd-barcelona-real-madrid-a9334826.html for some evidence). 

So the question is why the sudden change of tune? Discussions anout this plan have reportedly been going on since 2017/18 so it isnt just the current pandemic.

It could be that the likes of the Glazers, FSG and Stan Kronke have suddenly come over all altruistic and want to help out the little guy. Or it could be that the money is less important to them than the power grab of the 6+3 voting.

Now if you want to believe that these arch capitalists aren't looking at tbis as an opportunity to cement their power then thats your perogative- its also beyond naive.

You are conflating two different arguments in the article you attempt to use as evidence. This is about European football, not the current discussions. In fact it rather supports the current proposals.

“Imagine if the Premier League was redistributing 20% of its TV income around the game. Grassroots football in this country would be in a very, very different state.”

Seeing as the offer is 25%, that is better than the article is arguing for.

If one thing is naive, it is refusing to engage objectively when proposals are made to improve the game.

[BigFish 1,986]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

That encapsulates the double problem. It may be 25 per cent of a decreasing amount and there is no guarantee it will continue once the Big Six have got what they want.

Both valid points @PurpleCanary, the question is what is the alternative?

There is some good stuff in the package but there is also some not so good ideas

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

22 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Both valid points @PurpleCanary, the question is what is the alternative?

There is some good stuff in the package but there is also some not so good ideas

BF, that is a good question, and I don't have the answer. But at what might or might not be a tangent I would like to know more about this US offer and why it was turned down without consulting the clubs. You don't have to be mad conspiracist to wonder if Parry used his influence to put the mockers on it because it threatened  to scupper his cunning self-agrandising scheme.

[king canary 7,578]

28 minutes ago, BigFish said:

You are conflating two different arguments in the article you attempt to use as evidence. This is about European football, not the current discussions. In fact it rather supports the current proposals.

“Imagine if the Premier League was redistributing 20% of its TV income around the game. Grassroots football in this country would be in a very, very different state.”

Seeing as the offer is 25%, that is better than the article is arguing for.

If one thing is naive, it is refusing to engage objectively when proposals are made to improve the game.

I'm not conflating anything, you're just hugely missing the point.

The reason I included that article is to illustrate a wider point- up until this 'project big picture' elite clubs have gone out of their way to reduce the amount they give to smaller clubs- do you agree?

So what has caused this sudden change? You seem to think it doesn't matter, or at least matters significantly less than the money.

[Well b back 3,190]

24 minutes ago, BigFish said:

You are conflating two different arguments in the article you attempt to use as evidence. This is about European football, not the current discussions. In fact it rather supports the current proposals.

“Imagine if the Premier League was redistributing 20% of its TV income around the game. Grassroots football in this country would be in a very, very different state.”

Seeing as the offer is 25%, that is better than the article is arguing for.

If one thing is naive, it is refusing to engage objectively when proposals are made to improve the game.

And the TV revenue in 3 years time will be ? Possibly nothing as teams open their own channels ?. The deal would also see parachute payments being removed making it impossible for anyone to compete as financial fair play European rules will apply. They are also insisting on the vote of six, so they can decide whatever they want. Should they decide to relegate 3 teams and bring in Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern, then that’s upto the six.

The main clubs that will suffer are the few clubs like us and Burnley who have lived within our means. The main clubs that will gain are the Derbies who will see this as another £7m they can gamble with. Liverpool and Man Utd ( in my opinion ) are seeing an opportunity to shaft everyone, when they know lots of teams will need to vote in favour to save their own skins in the short term, with no regard to the future outcomes ( they won’t have a choice ). If they were really that worried about it all premier league players would take a 10 % cut in their salaries ( most of that would be tax anyway ) and donate it to league 1 and league 2 teams.

[BigFish 1,986]

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

The reason I included that article is to illustrate a wider point- up until this 'project big picture' elite clubs have gone out of their way to reduce the amount they give to smaller clubs- do you agree? Except of course they haven't, you misunderstood an article about the European Leagues Group, not England's big six. So this is nonesense, I don't agree, they are offering 25% now and offered 20% before. When they didn't have to offer anything.

So what has caused this sudden change? You seem to think it doesn't matter, or at least matters significantly less than the money.

Apparently, they have been thinking about this for years, so it is not a sudden change. Consider the package, which so far you have ignored-there is good ideas in it. Ultimately, that want more games in Europe and more lucrative friendlies. That requires fewer domestic games.

Unlikely, that the voting changes will pass either the Premier where it requires 14 votes or the FA which has a golden share. They know it too.

[king canary 7,578]

2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Apparently, they have been thinking about this for years, so it is not a sudden change. Consider the package, which so far you have ignored-there is good ideas in it. Ultimately, that want more games in Europe and more lucrative friendlies. That requires fewer domestic games.

Unlikely, that the voting changes will pass either the Premier where it requires 14 votes or the FA which has a golden share. They know it too.

It is still a pretty sudden change- and there is a clear exchange at play here- we'll give you cash, you give us more control over the game. 

I agree that more even distribution of funds throughout the football league is a good thing- I just don't think it is worth the exchange here.

If the monetary offer remains without the the 6+3 voting rules going through then great. I don't see it happening though.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Fenway and the Glaziers see a chance as most EFL clubs are worried about income, so they are preying on those fears to basically control our national game. Once they have control what's to stop them changing the amount they give to lower league clubs or the structure of our leagues? The resulting scraping of the parachute payments would also see clubs being less competitive when they go up as they would not invest in their squads. The loaning of players of up to 4 players per team would turn teams into training grounds for the big six players and reduce the fees the EFL clubs get for players. Also, if a very rich owner approaches a club, like they did Manchester City, what is to stop the big six, under the new rules, not allowing them to do doing that and therefore protecting their position. Rick Parry should resign immediately. I loathe the big six.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Kenny Foggo

[BigFish 1,986]

33 minutes ago, king canary said:

 I agree that more even distribution of funds throughout the football league is a good thing- I just don't think it is worth the exchange here.

If the monetary offer remains without the the 6+3 voting rules going through then great. I don't see it happening though.

I think we can agree on that!🙂

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

Further details:

• Premier League clubs would be allowed to show Saturday 3pm matches to British viewers on their own TV channels and digital platforms under the “Project Big Picture” proposals
• The Big Six clubs would set a salary cap in the Championship and wield a veto over the fixture calendar in the second tier of English football.
• Other proposed changes include lifting the requirement for League One and Two sides to have academies, which given the suggested changes to allow multiple players to go on loan between clubs, could lead to feeder clubs or B teams by stealth.

• It even suggests that the Premier League could sell the domestic and international TV rights for the FA Cup on behalf of the FA, with the league keeping some of the money from the sale.

• The Project would also allow top-flight clubs to make backdated claims to a fund for stadium improvements that would see Tottenham Hotspur able to claim £125 million back from the cost of their new £1billion stadium and Liverpool £30 million from their Anfield expansion.

Just because a  sh1t sandwich is enclosed in some lovely tiger bread and has a nice bit of lettuce and cucumber in it doesn't change the fact that you're eating sh1t. Tuck in if you like. I'll pass.

OTBC

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

That encapsulates the double problem. It may be 25 per cent of a decreasing amount and there is no guarantee it will continue once the Big Six have got what they want.

Especially as they want the rights to show 8 games a season on their own platforms. Which they will presumably get paid for. I wonder which 8 games they would choose as well? All against the other “big 6” would be my guess!

[Well b back 3,190]

1 hour ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Further details:

• Premier League clubs would be allowed to show Saturday 3pm matches to British viewers on their own TV channels and digital platforms under the “Project Big Picture” proposals
• The Big Six clubs would set a salary cap in the Championship and wield a veto over the fixture calendar in the second tier of English football.
• Other proposed changes include lifting the requirement for League One and Two sides to have academies, which given the suggested changes to allow multiple players to go on loan between clubs, could lead to feeder clubs or B teams by stealth.

• It even suggests that the Premier League could sell the domestic and international TV rights for the FA Cup on behalf of the FA, with the league keeping some of the money from the sale.

• The Project would also allow top-flight clubs to make backdated claims to a fund for stadium improvements that would see Tottenham Hotspur able to claim £125 million back from the cost of their new £1billion stadium and Liverpool £30 million from their Anfield expansion.

Just because a  sh1t sandwich is enclosed in some lovely tiger bread and has a nice bit of lettuce and cucumber in it doesn't change the fact that you're eating sh1t. Tuck in if you like. I'll pass.

OTBC

 

Yep

Basically 25% of the tv rights could be near zero in the future.

If Tottenham ( or Barcelona ) come knocking for the likes of Max Aaron’s, Max ( quite rightly ) would be saying see you later. 
Will a club like ours actually be worse off ? Ie will transfer fees drop to almost zero ?

Established clubs could find themselves in league 2 rapidly if they can’t spend money.

As a live competitive sport this will finish football.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Further details:

• Premier League clubs would be allowed to show Saturday 3pm matches to British viewers on their own TV channels and digital platforms under the “Project Big Picture” proposals
• The Big Six clubs would set a salary cap in the Championship and wield a veto over the fixture calendar in the second tier of English football.
• Other proposed changes include lifting the requirement for League One and Two sides to have academies, which given the suggested changes to allow multiple players to go on loan between clubs, could lead to feeder clubs or B teams by stealth.

• It even suggests that the Premier League could sell the domestic and international TV rights for the FA Cup on behalf of the FA, with the league keeping some of the money from the sale.

• The Project would also allow top-flight clubs to make backdated claims to a fund for stadium improvements that would see Tottenham Hotspur able to claim £125 million back from the cost of their new £1billion stadium and Liverpool £30 million from their Anfield expansion.

Just because a  sh1t sandwich is enclosed in some lovely tiger bread and has a nice bit of lettuce and cucumber in it doesn't change the fact that you're eating sh1t. Tuck in if you like. I'll pass.

OTBC

 

The Big Six would set a salary cap for the Championship? Oh and a veto over fixtures? Might as well simply give them control over  every aspect of the division. 

[CANARYKING 634]

The boys from Archant need to find out City’s views

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

Tonight the Telegraph has updated the story with latest developments:

 

Breakaway bombshell: FA reveals plot for Big Six to quit Premier League to force through Project Big Picture

Greg Clarke says he walked away from talks earlier this year when they became "a concentration of power and wealth in hands of a few clubs"

By Sam Wallace ; Ben Rumsby and Matt Law13 October 2020 • 9:32pm

The Football Association chairman Greg Clarke has accused Liverpool and Manchester United of plotting a breakaway from the Premier League as top-flight clubs prepared to declare war on their Project Big Picture (PBP) agenda at a crucial meeting on Wednesday.

Another extraordinary day in the plot to restructure English football and concentrate unprecedented power in the hands of the biggest clubs, as revealed by The Daily Telegraph on Sunday, saw the FA side with the Premier League as focus turned to what is set to be a stormy meeting of the 20 clubs on Wednesday morning. At least 13 clubs are also understood to be in staunch opposition and will say as much to United, Liverpool and other backers from the elite when they convene on a video call at 11am.

Wednesday's meeting will be the first time that clubs opposed to PBP can question representatives of Liverpool and United directly and gauge levels of support for the plan from others. The so-called big six of United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea are all considered to have varying degrees of interest in it, and potentially Everton too. The six were understood to have had talks on Tuesday. 

The Premier League will point out once again, as per its statement on Sunday, that it is already engaged in a strategic review into competition structures, fixture scheduling and the division of central broadcast revenues, and it will call again for unity.

Clarke said that he had walked away from talks with an unspecified number of top clubs when “the principal aim of these discussions became the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few clubs with a breakaway league mooted as a threat”. In a letter to the FA council, who meet on Thursday, Clarke did not specify the date at which talks turned to a breakaway, instead saying it was in “late Spring”.

He said he “counselled a more consensus-based approach involving all Premier League clubs and its Chair and CEO”. Clarke’s declaration was met in private with incredulity by Liverpool and United. The Premier League has had Clarke’s support since the details of PBP were revealed on Sunday, including a £250 million rescue coronavirus package for the Football League (EFL) and a £100 million gift for the FA.

Clarke rejected what he called the “potential changes” counselling against short-term solutions that would be “damaging in the long term”. He made mention of the FA’s power to license clubs playing in Uefa competitions, a threat to block rebels’ Champions League participation.

Clarke said that he had participated in the “early stage” of discussions of an unspecified scope and length with the knowledge of FA chief executive Mark Bullingham and other senior FA board members. Clarke said: “Change must benefit clubs, fans and players; not just selective balance sheets. In these difficult times unity, transparency and common purpose must override the interests of the few.”

Nevertheless, EFL chairman Rick Parry, so far the only public face of PBP, pushed ahead with plans by briefing his 72 members and garnering near universal approval for proposals that include those clubs getting 25 per cent of all future Premier League and EFL broadcast earnings. Only Mark Palios, the former FA chief executive who now owns Tranmere Rovers in League Two, warned PBP would usher in the end of the traditional English football pyramid.  

Palios said that PBP could lead to the Championship becoming Premier League 2 to which there would be no promotion from League One. The chairman of League One Lincoln City, Clive Nates, tweeted he was "vehemently" opposed to PBP which he described as a "diabolical power grab" in its current form. Andy Holt, chairman of Accrington Stanley in League One, also tweeted that he opposed PBP in its current form.

There was opposition for PBP elsewhere from the Football Supporters’ Association who described it as a “sugar-coated cyanide pill”. The so-called big six were even condemned by their own supporters’ trusts for backing PBP. So far only Liverpool and United have explicitly been named by Parry as having done so.

[Surfer 1,547]

According to Sky News now - 

https://news.sky.com/story/top-premier-league-clubs-threaten-to-break-away-unless-radical-changes-to-english-football-are-backed-12103649

It's basically American "vulture capitalism" dressed up as being "concerned with the welfare of the game" 

Time to call their bluff. Go find another league to play in. I'm sure the Championship would be happy to supply replacement clubs. And if the Government were worth anything they would stump up £250m as a Covid related community support fund.

p.s. it could be a reason why we are selling ... we got wind of the change and want to put some £ in the bank.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Surfer

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The Big Six would set a salary cap for the Championship? Oh and a veto over fixtures? Might as well simply give them control over  every aspect of the division. 

'Only Mark Palios, the former FA chief executive who now owns Tranmere Rovers in League Two, warned PBP would usher in the end of the traditional English football pyramid. Palios said that PBP could lead to the Championship becoming Premier League 2 to which there would be no promotion from League One.'

That has always struck me as more likely than the Premier League becoming a a closed shop and the power the Big Six seem to want over the Championship points that way.

[hogesar 9,618]

26 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

'Only Mark Palios, the former FA chief executive who now owns Tranmere Rovers in League Two, warned PBP would usher in the end of the traditional English football pyramid. Palios said that PBP could lead to the Championship becoming Premier League 2 to which there would be no promotion from League One.'

That has always struck me as more likely than the Premier League becoming a a closed shop and the power the Big Six seem to want over the Championship points that way.

It's all pretty terrible but this bit would at least be funny because Ipswich.

[king canary 7,578]

2 hours ago, Surfer said:

According to Sky News now - 

https://news.sky.com/story/top-premier-league-clubs-threaten-to-break-away-unless-radical-changes-to-english-football-are-backed-12103649

It's basically American "vulture capitalism" dressed up as being "concerned with the welfare of the game" 

Time to call their bluff. Go find another league to play in. I'm sure the Championship would be happy to supply replacement clubs. And if the Government were worth anything they would stump up £250m as a Covid related community support fund.

p.s. it could be a reason why we are selling ... we got wind of the change and want to put some £ in the bank.

It is no shock to me that the main drivers behind this are American. 

I imagine one of the key factors behind this is a desire to reduce any potential fluctuations in revenue at the top end. American owners are sued to the American model whereby once you buy a major sports franchise you're basically printing money no matter what. The combination of salary caps, no relegation and the weird American idea that professional sports team stadiums should be built with public money, mean that no matter how inept your team is on the field, you'll make profit. The Cleveland Browns apparently made $87m in profit last year despite being one of the worst run franchises in history.

For them, revenue for English football teams is far too linked to on pitch performance. Missing out on the Champions League costs. Relegation can destroy a teams finances. With the talk of expanded Champions League, we've already seen a push to change the qualification rules meaning clubs qualify based on their last 4 years ranking rather than their league position. This is all being done to make sure the likes of Man U don't ever have to worry about missing out.

 

[king canary 7,578]

29 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It's all pretty terrible but this bit would at least be funny because Ipswich.

While it could be, I'm sure you'll get an argument that due to their 'history' they should be locked into the Prem 2 over teams like Luton or similar.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

29 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It's all pretty terrible but this bit would at least be funny because Ipswich.

I'm sure the new Premier League would bend the rules somehow and ask the binners to join because of how they're everyone's second team and all that glorious history and stuff?

[Nuff Said 5,089]

Great minds...

[Jim Smith 2,314]

10 hours ago, CANARYKING said:

The boys from Archant need to find out City’s views

This.

the media are reporting widespread support for this in the EFL (at the meetings that utter c**t Parry arranged to try and force this through) including no dissenting voices in the championship.

I would be massively, massively disappointed in our club  if they supported this. I hope someone can find out what our stance is on it.

i would go so far as to say I would consider walking away from football if the proposals went through in their current form. I don’t blame the EFL owners of the small clubs for being desperate enough to be sucked in by it but the larger clubs should be standing up to be counted. 

 

[king canary 7,578]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

This.

the media are reporting widespread support for this in the EFL (at the meetings that utter c**t Parry arranged to try and force this through) including no dissenting voices in the championship.

I would be massively, massively disappointed in our club  if they supported this. I hope someone can find out what our stance is on it.

i would go so far as to say I would consider walking away from football if the proposals went through in their current form. I don’t blame the EFL owners of the small clubs for being desperate enough to be sucked in by it but the larger clubs should be standing up to be counted. 

 

Delia & MWJ have often come across as 'anti modern football' so I'd be quite surprised if they were pro these sorts of proposals.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

Delia & MWJ have often come across as 'anti modern football' so I'd be quite surprised if they were pro these sorts of proposals.

Agreed. However they are also owners who can’t afford to run a championship football club without parachute payments so I dare say a “potential” increased guaranteed future tv revenue (not that it will materialise) might tempt them...........

[Year of the tiger 54]

I see from a tweet from Kieran Maguire that the £250m is an advance from future tv monies so not so generous after all. Also we’re told there are no dissenting voices in the EFL but already Andy Holt(Accrington) &Lincolns Chairman have been very critical