Jump to content
Rock The Boat

Shake up of Premier league

Recommended Posts

None of this is a surprise really, is it? It's been mooted for many years in various guises. It's now stuck it's head above the parapet. 

It's got totally out of control , and no one is brave enough (as  they are weak and money mad) , but sort player's wages out, but it is too late. 

Pure greed.

The heart of football, and all it stood for over the decades , is being ripped out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Just to add not an expert on this but I imagine the idea of the top clubs being able to blackball takeover bids of other clubs might well be challengeable in the courts. Possibly on the basis that it is anti-competitive.

True in part @PurpleCanary, but it would be pefectly legal to bar any club that doesn't comply with "their rules" from "their competition"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably worth everyone calming down a bit. There is a lot to recommend this proposal, even though it might need work. The parachute payments definitly distort competition in the champs, we don't mind while we have them but the moment we don't I expect a number of posters will change minds. The 25% payment to the EFL will save the pyramid, it is more than the parachute payments because it includes the 19th and 20th share of TV cash. Scrapping the Community Shield and League Cup should have happened years ago, they are long past their sell by date and just clutter up the calendar. 20 clubs is too many in the Prem for the same reason.

Personally, I think the EFL is finished but this proposal will keep it going for a decade or so until the next upheaval. A Premier League II makes far more sense for City, e.g. 2x18 team divisions and then regionlise the pyramid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Probably worth everyone calming down a bit. There is a lot to recommend this proposal, even though it might need work. The parachute payments definitly distort competition in the champs, we don't mind while we have them but the moment we don't I expect a number of posters will change minds. The 25% payment to the EFL will save the pyramid, it is more than the parachute payments because it includes the 19th and 20th share of TV cash. Scrapping the Community Shield and League Cup should have happened years ago, they are long past their sell by date and just clutter up the calendar. 20 clubs is too many in the Prem for the same reason.

Personally, I think the EFL is finished but this proposal will keep it going for a decade or so until the next upheaval. A Premier League II makes far more sense for City, e.g. 2x18 team divisions and then regionlise the pyramid.

Its a power grab dressed up as charity and the biggest change in footballing structure for a long time. I don't think people need to 'calm down' I think people are rightfully angry about it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFish said:

True in part @PurpleCanary, but it would be pefectly legal to bar any club that doesn't comply with "their rules" from "their competition"

Not sure. What would happen if a club that got promoted (and so hadn't agreed to these rules) was then the subject of a takeover bid? Just musing on that. But perhaps more relevantly many clubs, including ourselves, are PLCs and so bound by the rules of the Takeover Code. I can well see it being argued that the Takeover Code outranks the protectionist rules of a self-elected cartel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some good elements of this but fundamentally as others have said it smacks of a power grab by the big 6, using the carrot of financial help to the EFL to get it through.

And ultimately the big 6 are using otherpeople's money to do it because they are not the ones who will lose out financially here, it will be the smaller premier league clubs. Plus they are also less dependent on the tv income anyway.

So basically this is Man U and Liverpool bribing the EFL to take control of the premier league and sacrificing a chunk of Palace or Brighton's income to do it. 

Most of it I could live with but:

Special status and almost complete control for the big 6 clubs is not acceptable in any circumstances.

Big clubs being able to hoard and loan out players (including 4 to the same club) is not acceptable and smacks of "premier league B teams" by the back door.

Not keen on the relegation/play off proposal either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused about this as to who has been part of the discussion. Rick Parry on TV seems delighted with it and has clearly been involved, i am not sure how many of his members may agree with him though. The PL on the other hand seem pretty unhappy as does the Culture secretary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, So the big 6 are the only ones who can change the rules of the NEW PL.

As many have posted it is a power grab, but, what stops the 6 from subsequently changing their rules to reduce/remove the funds going down the pyramid ?, or say reducing the PL to 16, or 14, or 6....

Just my 1p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Not sure. What would happen if a club that got promoted (and so hadn't agreed to these rules) was then the subject of a takeover bid? Just musing on that. But perhaps more relevantly many clubs, including ourselves, are PLCs and so bound by the rules of the Takeover Code. I can well see it being argued that the Takeover Code outranks the protectionist rules of a self-elected cartel.

I am just musing too, tbf. Ignoring the football authorities for a bit, I can't see any legal reason why the Premiership cannot control its own membership and rules. So an unsuitable owner could launch the takeover bid and I would agree very difficult for the Prem to legally prevent that. But they would retain the legal right to expel that club from the Prem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, king canary said:

Its a power grab dressed up as charity and the biggest change in footballing structure for a long time. I don't think people need to 'calm down' I think people are rightfully angry about it.

Is it really though, really?

Structure wise it only involves reducing the Prem to 18 clubs, which was the original plan back in the nineties and scrapping the Community Shield & League Cup. Neither of which are really up to much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I am just musing too, tbf. Ignoring the football authorities for a bit, I can't see any legal reason why the Premiership cannot control its own membership and rules. So an unsuitable owner could launch the takeover bid and I would agree very difficult for the Prem to legally prevent that. But they would retain the legal right to expel that club from the Prem.

I haven't thought this through thoroughly (that sounds like a quote from an English spelling test) but isn't the "fit and proper person" test something similar that's already in place? An extra check on whether a potential club owner is acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Is it really though, really?

Structure wise it only involves reducing the Prem to 18 clubs, which was the original plan back in the nineties and scrapping the Community Shield & League Cup. Neither of which are really up to much.

You're missing the point there BigFish. The power grab reference is (IMHO) about changing the voting scheme to effectively give all power to the big 6 clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yorkshire Canary said:

. Rick Parry on TV seems delighted with it 

Course he's delighted he was liverpool CEO for years so probably planned this years ago. He may as well be going round in  t shirt with 'i'm a trojan horse' on it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigFish said:

The parachute payments definitly distort competition in the champs

I'm not sure that this is the case, BF - not may relegated clubs are able to get re-promoted straight away, so perhaps their effect is exaggerated? They do tend to get promoted 2 or 3 years later perhaps, but given the relative size of these clubs, this is to be expected - ourselves, WBA, Fulham, Palace etc are bigger championship clubs regardless of parachute payments.

I fear the biggest impact of ending parachute payments would be that promotion would be even harder unless clubs took a reckless gamble with their future.

IMO, the majority of any cash injections from the Premier League and/or govt, should go to Leagues One and Two, the National League etc. The table that was posted last week showed the immense wealth of many championship owners - why should clubs like Burnely etc, who have been well run have to subsidise clubs richer owners that have behaved recklessly - e.g. Derby/ Sheff Weds etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Is it really though, really?

Structure wise it only involves reducing the Prem to 18 clubs, which was the original plan back in the nineties and scrapping the Community Shield & League Cup. Neither of which are really up to much.

Yes it is.

The money is all window dressing- the big play here is the voting rights. This deal basically gives 6 teams the ability to change the rules at will- and I bet first to go would be collective TV rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes it is.

The money is all window dressing- the big play here is the voting rights. This deal basically gives 6 teams the ability to change the rules at will- and I bet first to go would be collective TV rights. 

And it really feels like the carrot dangling bailout money is all a bit underhand. "Oh, a global pandemic with 10's of clubs about to go to the wall. Let's use this to get whatever we want in football for the rest of time".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Badger said:

I'm not sure that this is the case, BF - not may relegated clubs are able to get re-promoted straight away, so perhaps their effect is exaggerated? They do tend to get promoted 2 or 3 years later perhaps, but given the relative size of these clubs, this is to be expected - ourselves, WBA, Fulham, Palace etc are bigger championship clubs regardless of parachute payments.

I fear the biggest impact of ending parachute payments would be that promotion would be even harder unless clubs took a reckless gamble with their future.

IMO, the majority of any cash injections from the Premier League and/or govt, should go to Leagues One and Two, the National League etc. The table that was posted last week showed the immense wealth of many championship owners - why should clubs like Burnely etc, who have been well run have to subsidise clubs richer owners that have behaved recklessly - e.g. Derby/ Sheff Weds etc?

Part of this proposal does apparently include hard salary caps for lower divisions which does make sense if you end parachute payments.

The big issue is ending parachute payments also just helps to maintain the current stranglehold the big 6 have at the top of the pile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hogesar said:

And it really feels like the carrot dangling bailout money is all a bit underhand. "Oh, a global pandemic with 10's of clubs about to go to the wall. Let's use this to get whatever we want in football for the rest of time".

Looking through the prosposals, it feels the inevitable end result is top clubs B teams playing in the lower leagues, stockpiling of players at the top clubs and large chunks of lower league teams consisting of Premier League loanees. Basically the deal makes the EFL dependent on the 'generosity' of the top clubs, thus making them much less likely to stand in the way of any changes they want to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

Part of this proposal does apparently include hard salary caps for lower divisions which does make sense if you end parachute payments.

The big issue is ending parachute payments also just helps to maintain the current stranglehold the big 6 have at the top of the pile. 

Hard salary caps (and ending parachute payments generally) would just make it harder for promoted clubs to compete without gambling wildly. I don't it particularly benefits the big six but is more of a carrot to the bottom half who may feel that it makes their EPL position secure. It's a carrot to them, to encourage them to accept the wider loss of control. 

"You won't have as much say and control but you are more likely to stray in the EPL" is the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Hard salary caps (and ending parachute payments generally) would just make it harder for promoted clubs to compete without gambling wildly. I don't it particularly benefits the big six but is more of a carrot to the bottom half who may feel that it makes their EPL position secure. It's a carrot to them, to encourage them to accept the wider loss of control. 

"You won't have as much say and control but you are more likely to stray in the EPL" is the deal.

I personally think hard salary caps are needed but I think you'd also need to implement one in the Premier League which just won't happen (certainly not under this proposal).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, king canary said:

The big issue is ending parachute payments also just helps to maintain the current stranglehold the big 6 have at the top of the pile. 

How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BigFish said:

Probably worth everyone calming down a bit. There is a lot to recommend this proposal, even though it might need work. The parachute payments definitly distort competition in the champs, we don't mind while we have them but the moment we don't I expect a number of posters will change minds. The 25% payment to the EFL will save the pyramid, it is more than the parachute payments because it includes the 19th and 20th share of TV cash. Scrapping the Community Shield and League Cup should have happened years ago, they are long past their sell by date and just clutter up the calendar. 20 clubs is too many in the Prem for the same reason.

Personally, I think the EFL is finished but this proposal will keep it going for a decade or so until the next upheaval. A Premier League II makes far more sense for City, e.g. 2x18 team divisions and then regionlise the pyramid.

The EFL is fine, and has been so for decades. The problem is with the top heavy attention and money. The top clubs will do anything to ring fence their status and cash cows.

The parachute payments don't work as they are not always used as intended - which is as a parachute as the name would suggest. The idea was to enable newly promoted clubs or existing clubs to offer wages to players without fear of going bust on relegation. Instead, what teams do is spend the money up front in the hope that it pays off. Then when it doesn't they are relegated and the parachute payments are already gone on transfers meaning they have to sell off their talent rather than be able to hold onto them if they can, and use the parachute payments to sustain the club.

Eg; Naismith. Sometimes clubs are stuck with expensive gambles that didn't pay off. That is what parachute payments are for.

So if you take those away you won't introduce parity, but more disparity. Teams being promoted won't be getting as much money, if 25% is going to the EFL, then there will be less EPL money, especially with fewer games due to a reduced league. That's two games per team less. This means that teams will not be able to offer competitive wages upon promotion unless they have wealthy ownership or they throw caution to the wind.

Whatever that 25% works out to be will not equate to the same as parachute payments - I have seen someone suggest that 25% currently works out as about £10mill per team though it's unlikely to be equal and instead trickled down. So you'll end up with teams having less to spend and more to risk upon promotion and relegation. With a decreased number of EPL teams, more teams will be under the threat of relegation. It's ok being 6pts off relegation and say 5 teams between. 6pts off safety and only three teams between is quite different.

It'll result in all bar the top 6-8 teams in the EPL being constantly dogged by relegation with no real mid table as such, with the poorer EPL clubs being cut further adrift as the level of risk they can take hugely reduced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, king canary said:

I personally think hard salary caps are needed but I think you'd also need to implement one in the Premier League which just won't happen (certainly not under this proposal).

 

I agree. But I think it's even bigger than that. You'd need all of Europe to agree to salary caps otherwise all of the top players will go elsewhere to other leagues that pay more. This is why wealthy prem teams are paying £200-300k pw on wages on some players. This is why the EPL would never sign up to it if it was just English football. They have to protect their income which is largely TV and TV companies will only pay top whack if they believe some of the best players in the world are playing in your league and worthy of televising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, king canary said:

The big issue is ending parachute payments also just helps to maintain the current stranglehold the big 6 have at the top of the pile. 

 

11 minutes ago, BigFish said:

How?

Because clubs outside the top six will have to reign in their spending.

They'd have two options: 

a) Continue spending as they do now and go bankrupt upon relegation without the safety net of parachute payments

b) Cut the playing budget by £20m or so whilst they're still in the Premier League, so they'll be able to take the financial hit and survive if they're relegated. 

Most clubs would choose the second option. The only clubs who wouldn't need to consider this are the big six and possibly, at this moment, Everton, Leicester and Wolves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so part of this is the number of games in a season thing. I have probably got some of this wrong but please correct me - a quick bit of lunchbreak scribbling...

EPL Vs EFL head to head, I have focused on top 6-7 EPL teams.

Top 6 EPL Teams

Minimum Games Played: 36 for league, 2 for domestic cups, 7 if Champions League, 6 if Europa League, 1 if Europa League Qualifying. So arange of minimum games of 39-45 games.

EFL teams start with a minimum of 48 games.

You can argue competition progression may play a part but at that point you then have to take into account that EFL clubs have played more cup games to meet EPL teams in the cups, especially the teams in European competitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yorkshire Canary said:

I am confused about this as to who has been part of the discussion. Rick Parry on TV seems delighted with it and has clearly been involved, i am not sure how many of his members may agree with him though. The PL on the other hand seem pretty unhappy as does the Culture secretary

The bottom two divisions will be up for it as they want the cash and very few of them have realistic chances/aspirations of making the prmier league anyway. Not so much the fans but the owners will just want the cash to keep them afloat short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be pretty much unified opposition to this, except for the smaller clubs who are staring oblivion in the face - and whose chance of reaching the Premier League is so small that the changes make little practical difference to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

There seems to be pretty much unified opposition to this, except for the smaller clubs who are staring oblivion in the face - and whose chance of reaching the Premier League is so small that the changes make little practical difference to them.

Exactly, and lets not forget, it is their cases that the EFL have acted on behalf of in asking for some financial aid from the EPL and this is what their response was after declining it and pushing for football to continue without fans because, as sad as it sounds, the top 6-8 teams in the premier league do not need fans at their grounds to be financially viable, just the TV and sponsorship money they get if their domestic and European games go ahead. It is why we had project restart too, despite it being a financial disaster for many other clubs. And why our club was one of the few to speak honestly about it and oppose it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chicken said:

Exactly, and lets not forget, it is their cases that the EFL have acted on behalf of in asking for some financial aid from the EPL and this is what their response was after declining it and pushing for football to continue without fans because, as sad as it sounds, the top 6-8 teams in the premier league do not need fans at their grounds to be financially viable, just the TV and sponsorship money they get if their domestic and European games go ahead. It is why we had project restart too, despite it being a financial disaster for many other clubs. And why our club was one of the few to speak honestly about it and oppose it.

True, but without Project Restart, the financial implications for most of the PL clubs would have been disastrous too, as they would have had to give back a lot of TV money - which they had already spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

True, but without Project Restart, the financial implications for most of the PL clubs would have been disastrous too, as they would have had to give back a lot of TV money - which they had already spent.

That depends. There were plenty of suggestions at the time which would have made the TV side of things viable.

I think one suggestion was to auto promote the top two from the Championship and then to relegate four teams rather than 3 from the following two premier league seasons. Would have meant more PL fixtures, but those would have made up, at least in some part, for the loss of fixtures from this season.

However, the truth of the matter is that it is looking like some of that money will have to be repaid anyway. And the loss of gates for some may actually be worse. I seem to remember Webber saying the club will have lost around £20million+ in gates etc to project restart and he was against it. I would trust in Webber's view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...