Jump to content
Rock The Boat

Shake up of Premier league

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Ffp is useless- it just reinforces existing hierarchies.

If you had a country wide cap which went up in reasonable stages it would work just fine. But it won't happen.

Why not? If we are going to have this upheaval in English football with massive financial  ramifications for the EFL then I don't see why a rigorous FFP cannot be part of that. It could be insisted upon (I would guess Norwich City would be in favour) in return for accepting the overall package. ²

Share this post


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

Ffp is useless- it just reinforces existing hierarchies.

If you had a country wide cap which went up in reasonable stages it would work just fine. But it won't happen.

As you say a country wide salary cap won't happen. FFP is not as effective as it could be - although there have been fewer clubs going into administration in recent years (prior to Covid anyway) + their is less incentive for "mad gambles" because of FFP constraints. I suspect that, notwithstanding its weaknesses and deficiencies, we are better of with it than without it. As stated above, however, my preference would be to improve it.

FFP could certainly be made more robust though - hence the suggestions of EFL appointed auditors to ensure consistency, so clubs don't game the system or become confused by it - they would have proper (and competent) EFL appointed reference points.

Share this post


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

 

Of course, how silly, there is no chance the top 6 teams would use this new found power to push through changes beneficial to them. I'm sure they only suggest this so they can make football a better, more even world...

Jesus christ the naivety of this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Why not? If we are going to have this upheaval in English football with massive financial  ramifications for the EFL then I don't see why a rigorous FFP cannot be part of that. It could be insisted upon (I would guess Norwich City would be in favour) in return for accepting the overall package. ²

To be clear i meant salary cap.

FFP is just a fundamentally bad concept imo.

Share this post


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

Why not? If we are going to have this upheaval in English football with massive financial  ramifications for the EFL then I don't see why a rigorous FFP cannot be part of that. It could be insisted upon (I would guess Norwich City would be in favour) in return for accepting the overall package. ²

I don't think that it would be accepted by the EPL clubs. Therefore, they would hoover up any young talent to an even greater extent than they do now. Promoted clubs would find it even harder to compete in EPL.

Share this post


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

Of course, how silly, there is no chance the top 6 teams would use this new found power to push through changes beneficial to them. I'm sure they only suggest this so they can make football a better, more even world...

Jesus christ the naivety of this.

It is not objective to invent straw men problems and it is not naive to see this as a basis of a constructive plan to keep the EFL alive. The alternative isn't some fantasy you may have, the alternative is the Prem pulls up the drawbridge and leaves the EFL to collapse.

Share this post


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

It is not objective to invent straw men problems and it is not naive to see this as a basis of a constructive plan to keep the EFL alive. The alternative isn't some fantasy you may have, the alternative is the Prem pulls up the drawbridge and leaves the EFL to collapse.

I think that there is other alternatives:

1. The govt provides support to League One and Two. This might take the form of govt backed loans.

2. The PL provides support to League One and Two.

3. There should be less support for clubs who have acted irresponsibly and/ or have bigger resources to support themselves.

Just because it is the only available deal at  the moment does not mean that it is the only available deal for good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way would i pay for Sky football if this goes through, though i doubt the top six care at all.

It will be the end of top level English football as a sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BigFish said:

It is not objective to invent straw men problems and it is not naive to see this as a basis of a constructive plan to keep the EFL alive. The alternative isn't some fantasy you may have, the alternative is the Prem pulls up the drawbridge and leaves the EFL to collapse.

The big Premier League clubs have consistently done everything in their power to reduce how much money they have to give to the rest of the football league. Its naive in the extreme to suggest they've suddenly come over all altruistic.

Also while hypothetical my suggestions aren't exactly hugely out there. B teams in the lower leagues have long been wanted by top 6 clubs- Man City suggested it as recently as last week and thinks like tv right distribution and vetoes over clubs takeovers were specifically mentioned as issues that 6 clubs could control in all the coverage of the proposal.

 

20201012_175847.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Why not? If we are going to have this upheaval in English football with massive financial  ramifications for the EFL then I don't see why a rigorous FFP cannot be part of that. It could be insisted upon (I would guess Norwich City would be in favour) in return for accepting the overall package. ²

My understanding is that rigorous FFP is part of the proposals, but this is in the context of salary caps in the EFL and a tv revenue system that would see the bigger clubs increase their income considerably. So in the context (i.e. secure in the knowledge they will be earning more) the likes of Liverpool and Man U are happy for their to be FFP. It therefore risks becoming something that preserves or increases the bigger club's dominance.

Share this post


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

The big Premier League clubs have consistently done everything in their power to reduce how much money they have to give to the rest of the football league. Its naive in the extreme to suggest they've suddenly come over all altruistic.

Also while hypothetical my suggestions aren't exactly hugely out there. B teams in the lower leagues have long been wanted by top 6 clubs- Man City suggested it as recently as last week and thinks like tv right distribution and vetoes over clubs takeovers were specifically mentioned as issues that 6 clubs could control in all the coverage of the proposal.

 

20201012_175847.jpg

So the only reason for the other 3, is to develop a rule over vote winning that appears consistent with life in the real world.  You couldn't make it up.  And no wonder West Ham have seen through it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports emerging that the EFL turned down an offer of £375m for 20% equity from an American investor without consulting the clubs just prior to Project Big Picture going public.

Whilst not saying private equity investment is necessarily the answer some questions need to be asked here about the agenda being pursued here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Reports emerging that the EFL turned down an offer of £375m for 20% equity from an American investor without consulting the clubs just prior to Project Big Picture going public.

Whilst not saying private equity investment is necessarily the answer some questions need to be asked here about the agenda being pursued here. 

Where are these reports emerging from @Jim Smith? Sounds highly implausible that anyone would value the EFL at nearly £2 billion. The League has no real assets and the clubs are facing oblivion. There are a lot of goof ideas in the proposals and some that are very poor. Some of the reaction has been well over the top and the baby really is being thrown out with the bathwater.

Share this post


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

Where are these reports emerging from @Jim Smith? Sounds highly implausible that anyone would value the EFL at nearly £2 billion. The League has no real assets and the clubs are facing oblivion. There are a lot of goof ideas in the proposals and some that are very poor. Some of the reaction has been well over the top and the baby really is being thrown out with the bathwater.

I suspect this has been leaked by Baldwin, the outgoing CEO, but I didn't know the EFL was a company with shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

I suspect this has been leaked by Baldwin, the outgoing CEO, but I didn't know the EFL was a company with shares.

Yes the clubs are shareholders in the same way as the prem I believe.

Bigfish - its a report in the Times so I would imagine they are reasonably confident in their sources.

Share this post


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

Yes the clubs are shareholders in the same way as the prem I believe.

Bigfish - its a report in the Times so I would imagine they are reasonably confident in their sources.

As I understand it the EPL is a private company with each club in essence having one share, which you lose if you get relegated and you gain if promoted. You cannot buy into the EPL. This report makes the EFL sound like a public company with shares available so you can buy into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I suspect this has been leaked by Baldwin, the outgoing CEO, but I didn't know the EFL was a company with shares.

 

7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes the clubs are shareholders in the same way as the prem I believe.

Bigfish - its a report in the Times so I would imagine they are reasonably confident in their sources.

 

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

As I understand it the EPL is a private company with each club in essence having one share, which you lose if you get relegated and you gain if promoted. You cannot buy into the EPL. This report makes the EFL sound like a public company with shares available so you can buy into it.

Thanks @Jim Smith, got it. As @PurpleCanary points out it is riddled with holes and it is a bit skimpy. Seems an element of Baldwin getting his story out first in all of this, which doesn't help understand what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

As I understand it the EPL is a private company with each club in essence having one share, which you lose if you get relegated and you gain if promoted. You cannot buy into the EPL. This report makes the EFL sound like a public company with shares available so you can buy into it.

It is a private company Purple so I would asssume they would allot new share capital. You can buy into private companies if the shareholders agree and pass the relevant resolutions.

Share this post


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

It is a private company Purple so I would asssume they would allot new share capital. You can buy into private companies if the shareholders agree and pass the relevant resolutions.

Jim, I was about to post on those lines. The EFL could always create shares, but it would raise the question of who would own the other 75 per cent! Perhaps we will get some more detail. I would imagine a few EFL clubs will want answers as to why this was apparently turned down without them knowing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big problem with Project is reducing PL to 18 teams means at least 4 current Pl teams will be relegated, this will not be attractive to clubs likely to fall into that category.  Norwich suffered this fate in 95 when 24 became 22, when city finished 21st and were relegated from Pl for first time.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pete said:

Big problem with Project is reducing PL to 18 teams means at least 4 current Pl teams will be relegated, this will not be attractive to clubs likely to fall into that category.  Norwich suffered this fate in 95 when 24 became 22, when city finished 21st and were relegated from Pl for first time.. 

It was Palace who got caught, because four were relegated instead of the usual three, and only two were promoted, to reduce 22 to 20. We finished third bottom and would have dropped down anyway. But, yes, depending on how it is done it could even be five EPL teams getting relegated in one go, to reduce the number to 18.

Share this post


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

Big problem with Project is reducing PL to 18 teams means at least 4 current Pl teams will be relegated, this will not be attractive to clubs likely to fall into that category.  Norwich suffered this fate in 95 when 24 became 22, when city finished 21st and were relegated from Pl for first time.. 

We finished 20th, and the reduction was from 22 to 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigFish said:

Some of the reaction has been well over the top and the baby really is being thrown out with the bathwater.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was Palace who got caught, because four were relegated instead of the usual three, and only two were promoted, to reduce 22 to 20. We finished third bottom and would have dropped down anyway. But, yes, depending on how it is done it could even be five EPL teams getting relegated in one go, to reduce the number to 18.

It also means two EFL teams will be dropped from the EFL altogether. No suggestion has been made about how to compensate those teams or how the National League, which is made up of 24 teams already, is to deal with the addition of two teams - which would be to realistically either relegate a further two teams from their number.

It's worth noting that the National League also has several teams who have plied their trade at a much higher level in recent years. Aldershot were in league 1 at one point, Chesterfield, Hartlepool, Stockport County, Macclesfield Town... This could further impact other of our local teams like Kings Lynn.

Share this post


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

It also means two EFL teams will be dropped from the EFL altogether. No suggestion has been made about how to compensate those teams or how the National League, which is made up of 24 teams already, is to deal with the addition of two teams - which would be to realistically either relegate a further two teams from their number.

It's worth noting that the National League also has several teams who have plied their trade at a much higher level in recent years. Aldershot were in league 1 at one point, Chesterfield, Hartlepool, Stockport County, Macclesfield Town... This could further impact other of our local teams like Kings Lynn.

Two National League teams have already gone bust. Having too many teams is not going to be a problem in the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Your straw man hypotheticals rather support locking the Prem into the deal now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


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

Your straw man hypotheticals rather support locking the Prem into the deal now

I pointed out yesterday that these aren't strawman hypotheticals but actual real issues worthy of consideration. 

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.

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...