Shake up of Premier league

[Badger 2,405]

11 hours ago, Well b back said:

As a live competitive sport this will finish football.

I don't think it would kill it as a sport but it would destroy the cultural and community links upon which it is founded. We would have franchise football.

The people that propose this deal have little interest in the community impact of the changes they are suggesting: they are business people whose responsibility is to maximise profit to their shareholders. To them changing football is no different to replacing an unprofitable factory and relocating it in a lower cost location: it is about profit maximisation.

Man U/ Liverpool etc would make far more money if all of their games were big games - much greater emphasis on a European and World league. The domestic game is of little relevance to them or their shareholders.

[king canary 7,609]

12 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't think it would kill it as a sport but it would destroy the cultural and community links upon which it is founded. We would have franchise football.

The people that propose this deal have little interest in the community impact of the changes they are suggesting: they are business people whose responsibility is to maximise profit to their shareholders. To them changing football is no different to replacing an unprofitable factory and relocating it in a lower cost location: it is about profit maximisation.

Man U/ Liverpool etc would make far more money if all of their games were big games - much greater emphasis on a European and World league. The domestic game is of little relevance to them or their shareholders.

At the heart of footballs biggest issues is that we've allowed the idea of clubs as a 'business' to be the norm. 

Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal have no real interest in the collective of football- just maximizing what is best for them. They'll pay lip service to the idea of the football pyramid being needed but as you say their is no money to made for them in games between Fleetwood and Blackpool so why should they care?

Football clubs have been allowed to become profit making enterprises at the expense of the idea of the sport as a social and collective good in and of itself.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

Just imagine the stick Liverpool and man United would be getting at the grounds if we were still allowed in... it’d be beautiful.

[Well b back 3,208]

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't think it would kill it as a sport but it would destroy the cultural and community links upon which it is founded. We would have franchise football.

The people that propose this deal have little interest in the community impact of the changes they are suggesting: they are business people whose responsibility is to maximise profit to their shareholders. To them changing football is no different to replacing an unprofitable factory and relocating it in a lower cost location: it is about profit maximisation.

Man U/ Liverpool etc would make far more money if all of their games were big games - much greater emphasis on a European and World league. The domestic game is of little relevance to them or their shareholders.

Hi Badger

Competitive sport is the word I have used. Any decent player will be taken from you ( who knows if transfer fees will apply ) and as in Spain these clubs will then have B and even C teams. You may relate that to the way it is at the moment but there is a big difference. If you sell a player at present you can replace them sometimes with better players. Under this system take our current crop, the 18 would just come along and say ( between them ) we will have Aaron’s, Godfrey, Lewis, Krul, Bundeia, Pukki and that Idah chap looks promising, he can go in our b teams as well. Also take Skipp, he wouldn’t be here he would be in Spurs B team. I am no longer in Norfolk but the nearest high level football to the County would be 100 miles away. Watching Norwich ( like watching other Championship sides ) would be like watching league 1 or 2. Other than one seasons big bucks there would be nothing to play for.

Who is even to say who the 18 will be ? Leeds ? Villa ? Wolves ? Sunderland ? Even Leicester ? Birmingham are the City team in Birmingham why not them over Villa ?.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

I must say this whole episode has given me pause for thought about what ownership of a football club ought to be about. Those on here will know that I have been a long term advocate for exploring whether we can find more wealthy ownership to enable us to compete properly at the top table, not because I donlt think Delia and MWJ care, but just because I don't think we have the resources to compete. i would, however, think highly of them if they came out publically against this proposal and it does make you think that the levels of greed have become completely excessive and a "reset" is needed, just not the sort of reset that Liverpool and Man U would like. 

[Well b back 3,208]

3 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

Just imagine the stick Liverpool and man United would be getting at the grounds if we were still allowed in... it’d be beautiful.

Probably why they have seized the moment.

[Well b back 3,208]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I must say this whole episode has given me pause for thought about what ownership of a football club ought to be about. Those on here will know that I have been a long term advocate for exploring whether we can find more wealthy ownership to enable us to compete properly at the top table, not because I donlt think Delia and MWJ care, but just because I don't think we have the resources to compete. i would, however, think highly of them if they came out publically against this proposal and it does make you think that the levels of greed have become completely excessive and a "reset" is needed, just not the sort of reset that Liverpool and Man U would like. 

Yep

Crazily the answer would be for all clubs to be run like ours you only spend what you have. Unfortunately some of these owners will just see this as a quick buck. Also ( and I don’t know this ) I wonder what sort of pressure our club would be under if we did stand up to be counted ? Would others tear our club apart ?

[Nuff Said 5,142]

5 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Yep

Crazily the answer would be for all clubs to be run like ours you only spend what you have. Unfortunately some of these owners will just see this as a quick buck. Also ( and I don’t know this ) I wonder what sort of pressure our club would be under if we did stand up to be counted ? Would others tear our club apart ?

As Year of the tiger has already said, a couple of lower league chairman have already come out against this (I don't know whether they are among the more financially stable clubs, i.e. less desperate). So hopefully there's no reason not to take a public stand.

[Well b back 3,208]

3 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

As Year of the tiger has already said, a couple of lower league chairman have already come out against this (I don't know whether they are among the more financially stable clubs, i.e. less desperate). So hopefully there's no reason not to take a public stand.

That’s good. 
Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems the guys that lived within their means, Norwich and Burnley to name a couple are the ones going to lose. We may not necessarily agree with the model but selling Jamal Lewis alone this year gave us more money than this deal would. Those that gambled short term will be repaid and then can just walk away.

[ged in the onion bag 855]

12 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Yep

Crazily the answer would be for all clubs to be run like ours you only spend what you have. Unfortunately some of these owners will just see this as a quick buck. Also ( and I don’t know this ) I wonder what sort of pressure our club would be under if we did stand up to be counted ? Would others tear our club apart ?

No, don’t think they would dare but who cares anyway!   Our club should do what’s right long-term For every club, which is to shoot this down.     It’s time the fans stood up to this.   Hopefully the government will too, they’ve said they are looking at a fan led review!     Don’t get me wrong, this government were a bunch of incompetents well before they were elected in again but hopefully they will have enough nous to stop it.   

[Well b back 3,208]

1 minute ago, ged in the onion bag said:

No, don’t think they would dare but who cares anyway!   Our club should do what’s right long-term For every club, which is to shoot this down.     It’s time the fans stood up to this.   Hopefully the government will too, they’ve said they are looking at a fan led review!     Don’t get me wrong, this government were a bunch of incompetents well before they were elected in again but hopefully they will have enough nous to stop it.   

You would hope not, but playing devils advocate why do most clubs seem to want this ? Especially as fans are almost all against it. I can only assume clubs will be telling fans ‘ it’s this or we go under ‘ and the government being told ‘ go away you had your chance to give us money and didn’t.

Liverpool and Man U have been very clever ( or stupid depending on the outcome ) and done this at a time where the voices can only be heard behind our computers not in the stadiums. Think of the effect under normal circumstances if on Saturday every fan throughout throughout the country did not turn up and just like it is now there would be empty stadiums. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

As far as I am concerned the so called big six can get on their bikes and ride off into the sunset with their attempted take over of the nation's football. They may be big and have a lot of money/power, but with them out of the way, the rest of us can get on with it with a system that rewards good housekeeping and penalises those that spend way beyond their means. 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I must say this whole episode has given me pause for thought about what ownership of a football club ought to be about. Those on here will know that I have been a long term advocate for exploring whether we can find more wealthy ownership to enable us to compete properly at the top table, not because I donlt think Delia and MWJ care, but just because I don't think we have the resources to compete. i would, however, think highly of them if they came out publically against this proposal and it does make you think that the levels of greed have become completely excessive and a "reset" is needed, just not the sort of reset that Liverpool and Man U would like. 

Indeed, Jim.  If we follow through on this desire for wealthier owners then money eventually becomes the biggest driver for the sport we all love. And thats where the EPL is today, with the focus now on making profit instead of celebrating the greatness in our game.  

I've always held the view that our owners had the correct model because they put the football as part of the community ethos before any desire to sell out to the highest bidder. 

I now think that domestic football would actually be better without the big six and we should actually call their bluff and let them break away. The remaining PL teams plus the Championship would make a very competitive league where each game has meaning to both participants. The possibility of a score of clubs winning the league would make for a very exciting sport. We could restructure the league administration so that it was less dependent on having wealthy backers so that the whole question of stinking rich Chinese owners would.just disappear. 

[chicken 2,627]

18 hours ago, BigFish said:

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

No, they don't. I have literally pointed out that the deal isn't locking them into anything.

You have fallen for the Emperor's New Clothes.

Here, have 25% of future TV revenue (note TV), we'll even give you an advance of £250million.

An ADVANCE.

And they want control over more than just the premier league.

Considering the future is looking hugely like TV money will slowly drain away as teams look to launch their own Internet (note internet) platforms to televise their games with. 

Essentially this is a very typical US capitalist move. Of course it's not a new idea, but no one would even contemplate this deal before.

Just the same as whilst no one is drowning, the demand for a lifebelt or ring is going to be low. When there are people in the water needing help, then you need those flotation aids. And in the USA, that is when the big corporations see dollar signs. Oh, you need our help? That'll cost you.

In this instance. It'll cost the EFL it's identity and soul and I dare say that of many of it's clubs - and those in the national league and lower.

Literally the only good bit is 25% and £250mil of that now. However, it's not long term, there is no "lock in" in that plenty of loopholes exist and exit strategies. Hell it even says that the top six will get a say over how much TV revenue the EFL gets in the future. That isn't even remotely close to locking anything in.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

8 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Indeed, Jim.  If we follow through on this desire for wealthier owners then money eventually becomes the biggest driver for the sport we all love. And thats where the EPL is today, with the focus now on making profit instead of celebrating the greatness in our game.  

I've always held the view that our owners had the correct model because they put the football as part of the community ethos before any desire to sell out to the highest bidder. 

I now think that domestic football would actually be better without the big six and we should actually call their bluff and let them break away. The remaining PL teams plus the Championship would make a very competitive league where each game has meaning to both participants. The possibility of a score of clubs winning the league would make for a very exciting sport. We could restructure the league administration so that it was less dependent on having wealthy backers so that the whole question of stinking rich Chinese owners would.just disappear. 

I am disappointed to see the likes of Boro and Sunderland coming out in support of it. Just massively disappointing to see how low those clubs have sunk/how desperate they are.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

No, they don't. I have literally pointed out that the deal isn't locking them into anything.

You have fallen for the Emperor's New Clothes.

Here, have 25% of future TV revenue (note TV), we'll even give you an advance of £250million.

An ADVANCE.

And they want control over more than just the premier league.

Considering the future is looking hugely like TV money will slowly drain away as teams look to launch their own Internet (note internet) platforms to televise their games with. 

Essentially this is a very typical US capitalist move. Of course it's not a new idea, but no one would even contemplate this deal before.

Just the same as whilst no one is drowning, the demand for a lifebelt or ring is going to be low. When there are people in the water needing help, then you need those flotation aids. And in the USA, that is when the big corporations see dollar signs. Oh, you need our help? That'll cost you.

In this instance. It'll cost the EFL it's identity and soul and I dare say that of many of it's clubs - and those in the national league and lower.

Literally the only good bit is 25% and £250mil of that now. However, it's not long term, there is no "lock in" in that plenty of loopholes exist and exit strategies. Hell it even says that the top six will get a say over how much TV revenue the EFL gets in the future. That isn't even remotely close to locking anything in.

Leaving aside the fact that the cllub who have the control can presumably change it its 25% of future tv revenues (and yes the initial £250M is an advance not on top of) excluding any monies the clubs are able to make by broadcasting 8 games a season on their own platforms/themselves. Which presumably will be the 8 biggest games. Which presumably further reduces the value of the TV deal. 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

17 minutes ago, chicken said:

No, they don't. I have literally pointed out that the deal isn't locking them into anything.

You have fallen for the Emperor's New Clothes.

Here, have 25% of future TV revenue (note TV), we'll even give you an advance of £250million.

An ADVANCE.

And they want control over more than just the premier league.

Considering the future is looking hugely like TV money will slowly drain away as teams look to launch their own Internet (note internet) platforms to televise their games with. 

Essentially this is a very typical US capitalist move. Of course it's not a new idea, but no one would even contemplate this deal before.

Just the same as whilst no one is drowning, the demand for a lifebelt or ring is going to be low. When there are people in the water needing help, then you need those flotation aids. And in the USA, that is when the big corporations see dollar signs. Oh, you need our help? That'll cost you.

In this instance. It'll cost the EFL it's identity and soul and I dare say that of many of it's clubs - and those in the national league and lower.

Literally the only good bit is 25% and £250mil of that now. However, it's not long term, there is no "lock in" in that plenty of loopholes exist and exit strategies. Hell it even says that the top six will get a say over how much TV revenue the EFL gets in the future. That isn't even remotely close to locking anything in.

Yes. As things stand, based on what is publicly available, I would vote No if I had a vote.

To add, a rescue package is needed, and quickly, but this is not it.

Edited October 14, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[Well b back 3,208]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

As far as I am concerned the so called big six can get on their bikes and ride off into the sunset with their attempted take over of the nation's football. They may be big and have a lot of money/power, but with them out of the way, the rest of us can get on with it with a system that rewards good housekeeping and penalises those that spend way beyond their means. 

 

But unfortunately without them there would be no ‘ football product ‘ and they know that. The TV companies would throw their money at the European league ( or world league or whatever ). Tokyo v Manchester Manchester United would have huge audiences compared to Norwich v Leicester or Brentford. Our means would be 26,000 paying customers every other week for nine months, smaller clubs maybe 3-4000. Wages for players would be decimated and any good player would be off to the world elite. 
You must also remember unlike the fans and other EPL teams the EFL clubs seem in the main behind this, now I have no idea why so maybe Delia could come out and tell us why these proposals would benefit our club, or alternatively how we must unite against them.

My immediate thought was throw Liverpool and Manchester United out of the league, but maybe that’s the sort of reaction they wanted and when this is voted down by the EPL they will simply resign their membership of the EPL and form a European or World league. Even the EPL teams can’t win, they bow to the pressure or the football product is no longer as there will be no audience for the watered down English game. They have allegedly been talking about this for 2-3 years so one can only assume they are also talking to the Bayern’s and the Real Madrid’s.

They have chosen this time specifically because fans of English football cannot be seen hating them. 
Their steamroller needs to be stopped, but how ? With empty stadiums and clubs very futures at stake I have no idea as at the moment all options seem to point to Liverpool and Manchester United winning.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

So will the Archant boys (who presumably keep an eye on this messageboard) go and get a statement from Norwich City as to where they stand on this? I would love to know. 

[Well b back 3,208]

22 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I am disappointed to see the likes of Boro and Sunderland coming out in support of it. Just massively disappointing to see how low those clubs have sunk/how desperate they are.

Hi Jim

I took a quick look at the Borough and Sunderland boards and fans seem pretty much against it ( some Sunderland fans however think they may become part of the 18 ). So as I just mentioned in another post if this feeling is so overwhelming from the fans why don’t the clubs address their own fans and tell us either what we are all missing or encouraging us to rebel. I suppose as well the further down the pyramid you go the more the fans will support it. You could argue with respect to Stevenage they would never be near the premiership, but nor were Wimbledon, Salford now and Leicester in winning it. However it takes away the dream as there will be no dreaming anymore.

[Well b back 3,208]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

So will the Archant boys (who presumably keep an eye on this messageboard) go and get a statement from Norwich City as to where they stand on this? I would love to know. 

I hope so.

If we are supporting it I would love to know what we are missing. The likes of us and Burnley seem to be losing the most here.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

For those who have not seen them the more detailed version of the proposals is as follows:

Here's the full list of changes:

Rescue Fund
An immediate rescue fund of £350,000,000 to the English Football League and Football Association for lost revenues of 2019/20 and 2020/21

For the EFL:

£50,000,000 to cover 2019/20 EFL matchday losses;

Up to £200,000,000 available to cover 2020/21 EFL matchday losses;

Money will be advanced to the EFL from increased future revenues.

For the FA:
£100,000,000 in grants, made up of £55,000,000 to cover operational losses, £25,000,000 for clubs below the EFL, £10,000,000 for the Women’s Super League and Championship, £10,000,000 for grassroots

Funds to be made available by the Premier League through loans guaranteed by the clubs.

Infrastructure Plan
Infrastructure funding of 6% of Premier League gross revenues to be distributed annually to the top four divisions.

Each club will receive £100 per seat annually.

Infrastructure funding can only be used for stadia and fan experiences.

Fan Charter
A cap of £20 on Premier League away ticketing (adjusted every 3 years for inflation)

Subsidised Premier League away travel

Safe-standing sections at the discretion of each club, subject to government permission.

Away sections must provide at least 3,000 or 8% of capacity, whichever is higher.

Annual Good Causes
An increase of 66% in annual contributions to good causes in England.

A total of 5% of Premier League gross income to be contributed annually to good causes and grassroots football, to include focus on combatting racism and discrimination.

Redistribution of Media & Sponsorship Revenues (three possible options)
Option A: 50% equal, 25% current-year merit, 25% previous 3-year merit
A greater emphasis will be placed on merit in both the Premier League and the Championship with half of payments reflecting positions over the past four years.

Option B: Current Premier League distribution scheme (50% equal, 25% by merit and 25% by facility fees) but newly promoted clubs must holdback £25m of first two years in the Premier League to mitigate risk of relegation.

Option 😄 Current Premier League distribution scheme, but newly promoted clubs receive 25% of their allocated Facility Fees for first 3 years in league.

For all above options:
Excluding parachute payments and including new infrastructure payments, solidarity from the Premier League to the English Football League would increase from 4% to 25%.

Premier League and English Football League domestic and international media rights will be collectively sold by the Premier League.

Compensation payments to The EFL and FA, infrastructure monies and related borrowings are deducted prior to determination of distributable revenues.

Pyramid structure
The Premier League, originally formed to house 18 clubs,would be reduced from 20 to 18 clubs.

This would free up the calendar and, with fewer teams and an end to parachute payments, provide additional resources to the EFL.

Reduction from 38 to 34 rounds of matches will also aid the national team.

Championships, League One and League Two to all be made up of 24 clubs

Promotion and relegation
Premier League relegation. At least 2 clubs automatically relegated annually

Championship promotion: 1st and 2nd automatically promoted.

Club finishing 16th in the Premier League joins four team Championship play-off tournament with teams who finish 3rd, 4th and 5th. Semi-finals would be 16th place PL team vs 5th place Championships team nad 3rd place Championship team against 4th place Championship team.

Championship relegation – 3 clubs

Leagues One and Two: promotion of 3 clubs. Relegation of 4 clubs

Club media
All Premier League clubs have the exclusive rights to sell eight live matches a season directly to fans via their own digital platforms in all international territories.

All Premier League and Championship clubs allowed to show limited in-match highlights on their own digital platforms.

No more than 27 games per club will be shown live in UK per season

Saturday 3pm broadcast blackouts remain to help protect EFL attendance

Other competitions
League Cup and Community Shield discontinued;

Establishment of a new independent league for the Women’s professional game, not to be owned by the Premier League or The Football Association;

FA Cup replays retained but there will be no replays in the winter break;

Premier League begins later in August and pre-season friendlies extended;

No more than two weeks between the end of the Premier League and the Champions League final;

Premier League clubs must participate at least once every five years in the Premier League summer tournament.

Other structural changes
Elite Player Performance Plan funding is included in the revenue received by EFL clubs;

Clubs in League One and below are no longer required to have an academy;

Clubs permitted to have up to 15 players out on loan domestically at any time, including up to four in a single English club. Introduction of one month loans for players under 23, an ability to recall loanees in the event of managerial change, incentivise loanee clubs through payments based on future performance or sale of loaned players;

Remove the scholarship clause permitting players to terminate at any stage.

Cost Controls & Related Party Income
Financial Fair Play rules that align with Uefa to ensure English clubs are not at a disadvantage in Europe;

A £50 million cap per annum on all related party transactions and a more stringent ‘related party’ definition;

Premier League executive provided with full access to clubs accounting information to investigate cost control

A joint Premier League and Championship body will monitor cost controls.

The English Football League will introduce hard salary caps.

Governance
All material matters relating to the business of the Premier League will require shareholder approval, except that the Board will decide whether to approve a new owner;

All votes will require more than two-thirds majority to be approved;

All other votes for the operation of the Premier League will be one-club, one-vote except those provided for under ‘Special Voting Rights’

Special Voting Rights
Each of the nine clubs who, at any time of determination, have been members of the Premier League continuously for more seasons than other clubs will be considered a ‘Long-Term Shareholder’.

Two-thirds of the long-term shareholders can cause to be adopted without approval from the other clubs:

i) the election or removal of the CEO and/or a member of the board;

ii) amendments to cost control rules and regulations;

iii) contracts for the sale of league broadcasting and media rights

Two-thirds of the long-term shareholders can prevent from being adopted resolutions to:
i) change the distribution rights of the sponsorship, commercial and broadcasting rights sold centrally;

ii) change the distribution to clubs from other PL centralised rights or assets

c) alter in a material way the nature of the competition

Two-thirds of the long-term shareholders can veto the Premier League board’s approval of a proposed new owner.

[chicken 2,627]

28 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes. As things stand, based on what is publicly available, I would vote No if I had a vote.

To add, a rescue package is needed, and quickly, but this is not it.

The strange thing is, the more that becomes available, the less attractive it gets. The more control the EPL has over the EFL AND the EPL.

Essentially the EPL are wanting a controlling stake in ALL football for 25% of TV revenue they know is likely to decrease and £250mill in advance.

Those two together could have the EFL held over a barrel for quite a long time to come. If the TV revenue decreases it'll take longer to get the full amount of the 25%, if the TV money dries up altogether it could leave EFL clubs in debt to the EPL.

Either they care enough to want to do something or they don't. And it's clear they don't.

[Well b back 3,208]

I thought the Iplay thing we are starting to get used to would be the future for clubs like ours with big followings until I read this - Firstly theEPL would negotiate all our TV rights and then o look we will not be able to sell live games but EPL teams will

All Premier League clubs have the exclusive rights to sell eight live matches a season directly to fans via their own digital platforms in all international territories.

All Premier League and Championship clubs allowed to show limited in-match highlights on their own digital platforms.

[WD40 720]

14 minutes ago, chicken said:

The strange thing is, the more that becomes available, the less attractive it gets. The more control the EPL has over the EFL AND the EPL.

Essentially the EPL are wanting a controlling stake in ALL football for 25% of TV revenue they know is likely to decrease and £250mill in advance.

Those two together could have the EFL held over a barrel for quite a long time to come. If the TV revenue decreases it'll take longer to get the full amount of the 25%, if the TV money dries up altogether it could leave EFL clubs in debt to the EPL.

Either they care enough to want to do something or they don't. And it's clear they don't.

Just to push on this - and I’m opposed to this set of proposals - does it make sense for there to be separate bodies controlling different leagues that need to work together? If the EFL are supposed to look out for lower clubs interests there isn’t too much evidence of that (Bury, Huddersfield, Hull). If we were to start with a blank bit of paper I imagine it would be one body overseeing Prem and the lower leagues that could distribute the revenue received by the whole in a more equitable manner.

The sh*tty bit is 6 CLUBS overseeing the whole league stricture to the benefit of themselves. 

[sgncfc 1,228]

30 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

So will the Archant boys (who presumably keep an eye on this messageboard) go and get a statement from Norwich City as to where they stand on this? I would love to know. 

According to Sky, the majority of the Championship clubs are supportive of the proposals and they quote an unnamed source at one as follows:-

"We can survive in the short and medium term due to player trading and parachute payments but ultimately the club's finances are fundamentally supported by the return of fans. Without that in the medium to long term our business model as a self-financed club no longer works."

I'll leave you to guess who that unattributed quote might be from, but as there are only 5 clubs in receipt of parachute payments and of those five, Bournemouth, Cardiff  and Watford are not self-financed it's between us and Huddersfield....

 

 

[hogesar 9,676]

BUT WHY HAVEN'T WE SIGNED A BLOODY CENTREBACK*

 

*feels slightly less important right now, in context.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

29 minutes ago, chicken said:

The strange thing is, the more that becomes available, the less attractive it gets. The more control the EPL has over the EFL AND the EPL.

Essentially the EPL are wanting a controlling stake in ALL football for 25% of TV revenue they know is likely to decrease and £250mill in advance.

Those two together could have the EFL held over a barrel for quite a long time to come. If the TV revenue decreases it'll take longer to get the full amount of the 25%, if the TV money dries up altogether it could leave EFL clubs in debt to the EPL.

Either they care enough to want to do something or they don't. And it's clear they don't.

Its not the EPL, its the big 6 clubs or more specifically Man United and Liverpool 

[BigFish 1,988]

55 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes. As things stand, based on what is publicly available, I would vote No if I had a vote.

To add, a rescue package is needed, and quickly, but this is not it.

As it stands is the key, the question is what can be negotiated to change that No to Yes, not by you omnipotent @PurpleCanary but by at least half of the landfill Prem clubs. Something like this is needed, and needed now.

TV money has changed top-level football, and this is all around top level football. The lower league and non-league football will continue whatever is agreed. In fact the immediate financial transfers will help those to flourish in the forseeable future.

We could go back to football as the older amongst knew it. But we won't. That would require rejecting all media income and cutting the games cloth to fit. Lower wages mean no more foreign mercenaries and many English stars playing abroad.

[BigFish 1,988]

13 minutes ago, WD40 said:

Just to push on this - and I’m opposed to this set of proposals - does it make sense for there to be separate bodies controlling different leagues that need to work together? If the EFL are supposed to look out for lower clubs interests there isn’t too much evidence of that (Bury, Huddersfield, Hull). If we were to start with a blank bit of paper I imagine it would be one body overseeing Prem and the lower leagues that could distribute the revenue received by the whole in a more equitable manner.

We could call it something like the Football Association