PL clubs accused of 'empty promise' on EFL funding

[Robert N. LiM 4,362]

Quote

 

Premier League clubs have been accused of making an "empty promise" about a new funding deal for the English Football League (EFL).

A meeting between clubs on Monday ended without an agreement on a 'New Deal'.

Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the Culture, Media and Sport committee, accused clubs of "parking the bus".

Premier League clubs were recently told that failure to reach a funding deal with the EFL would mean one being imposed on them.

"The longer this deadlock goes on, the more the stated commitment from Premier League clubs to striking a deal with the rest of the pyramid looks like nothing more than an empty promise," said Dinenage.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68542248

 

Edited March 12 by Robert N. LiM
Edited title to fit character count

[cambridgeshire canary 6,721]

Of course. They don't want to share their sundae nor do they want to even give us a bite of the cherry that's on it.

 

We would be lucky if they even considered giving an us empty glass nevermind a spoon..

Edited March 12 by cambridgeshire canary

[BobLoz3 492]

It does rather highlight the financial disparity between the leagues.

Doesn't stop me wanting us to reach the Prem but the difference in wealth is so ridiculously vast that it doesn't lend itself to anything like an even field. It's frustrating. Although money doesn't always guarantee success it often helps give you a shove in the right direction. 

We are often told we're the money men in this league but that seems stupid to me given our owner's rather small amounts of wealth compared to others.

I don't really know what the terms that have been put to Premier teams are so it would be interesting to find out more about that. 

 

[Peregrine Shorts 315]

….shocked I tell you.

 

they would really like it to become a completely closed shop

[sgncfc 1,228]

So now the government appointed regulator will force them to reach an agreement. Which will hopefully be a lot more than they would like.

[essex canary 496]

We are sitting on the fence torn between our current impoverished owners and our prospective owners with their plan to turn us into Brighton mark 2.

[essex canary 496]

16 minutes ago, BobLoz3 said:

 

We are often told we're the money men in this league but that seems stupid to me given our owner's rather small amounts of wealth compared to others.

 

 

That is why we spent £118 million on Wages in 1 season.

[RobJames 881]

All pretty much pointless. Any increase in revenue will simply see a demand for higher wages, which Championship clubs will accede to. What else is there to do with the money, so while hold back allowing others to benefit.

Until it's absolutely necessary clubs have no interest in infrastructure. Fans turn up for success, any money diverted away from that s seen as a waste.

Focussing on what the PL hands out distracts from the real problem. The PL has become a closed shop. By that I mean the top six who have pulled up the ladder. The rest exist in some near death struggle every season where cubs fly like moths to a light bulb.

The solution would be to tell those clubs to fck off. They need the rest more than ever those need them.  They would be relegated to playing each other 8 times a season in ever less meaningful games. Mean while the 'new' PL would have an influx of six other clubs, most of whom would think they had a chance of success. Maybe have a playoff for the title - four teams. The Scots have some different arrangement at the back end of the season.

If the rest want to act as bit part players, extras to their success then fine, but they should not complain when they are not prepared to act.

Nothing is set in stone, other than that noa small number have been domintaing the PL for a decade or more.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

We are sitting on the fence torn between our current impoverished owners and our prospective owners with their plan to turn us into Brighton mark 2.

Brighton's owner Tony Bloom has put approx £700 million of his own money into the club. Can you point me to the reports that Attanasio is planning to put that amount of money into us. (I appear to have missed them). 

[Ernie Wise 65]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

That is why we spent £118 million on Wages in 1 season.

And have a debt in excess of £90m without a pot to p*ss in.

Money League clubs can have bigger wage bills because they have wealthy owners?

[RobJames 881]

31 minutes ago, Ernie Wise said:

And have a debt in excess of £90m without a pot to p*ss in.

Money League clubs can have bigger wage bills because they have wealthy owners?

I have a mortgage as yet still paying, as have many on here

Perhaps someone could explain how they to you

as you appear not to have a brain to think with

[Ulfotto 635]

It won’t be too long before instead of all premier league clubs getting an equal share of the tv money it moves to each individual club getting a percentage based on there worth so the top 7 keep 90% of the money which is how I understand it works in most teams of the other European leagues. Interesting I feel this model would actually benefit Norwich and the championship clubs as although it would move 7-8 even further away it might reduce the gap between the other 12 teams in the premier league and the championship.

[RobJames 881]

5 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

it would move 7-8 even further away it might reduce the gap between the other 12 teams in the premier league and the championship.

toward what purpose ?

Edited March 12 by RobJames

[Indy 3,300]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Brighton's owner Tony Bloom has put approx £700 million of his own money into the club. Can you point me to the reports that Attanasio is planning to put that amount of money into us. (I appear to have missed them). 

Indeed! This daft notion that a takeover would lead to massive success and a stay in the top flight is just not going to happen because of MA.

There’s a lot of clubs in this division and below who have rich owners but can’t just throw millions at it! There’s too many barriers for that to lead to success.

A structured and successful way forwards is to build on our academy and not sell the best players to survive, which is going to be hard to do as we’re still a selling club to those with big attraction to top flight football. The reality is that until things change in the top leagues across Europe and a set structure accepted to fixed wage caps and squad numbers levelling the field slightly it’s never going to get competitive for all clubs.

Of course money is king in sport and top clubs will always be top clubs because they do have history and that alone will attract the best, the rest will need to find clubs if player numbers over the age of 23 are limited to each squad each year! 

[Ulfotto 635]

19 minutes ago, RobJames said:

toward what purpose ?

More money for the big teams to reflect there importance look Man Utd should get a larger slice of the money than Sheffield Utd. At the moment I think they get the same slice of the pie.
 

If you divided the money less equally so the big 6 get 80% money. It would reduce the wealth of the bottom half of the premier league which might be a good thing.

[RobJames 881]

"not sell the best players to survive,"

eh ?

We don't. Players get offered a better deal and they move. That is what happens at ALL levels of football. The idea that we could block a players progress is absurd, and would be very short lived as players would be reluctant to sign or us.

Player sales help us increase our spend. Note the word increase. We do not run up debt then scrabble around to sell someone to pay for that hitherto unaffordable spent. If we never sold another player we would survive, albeit on a different budget.

Your claim totally misrepresents the way the club operates financially.

 

 

[RobJames 881]

2 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

More money for the big teams to reflect there importance look Man Utd should get a larger slice of the money than Sheffield Utd. At the moment I think they get the same slice of the pie.
 

If you divided the money less equally so the big 6 get 80% money. It would reduce the wealth of the bottom half of the premier league which might be a good thing.

Why ?

[Indy 3,300]

3 hours ago, sgncfc said:

So now the government appointed regulator will force them to reach an agreement. Which will hopefully be a lot more than they would like.

Be interesting if they did how the top teams and Premier League would react? Will there be big wave of top flight lawyers employed to wrap up any deals which were not liked!

[Ulfotto 635]

58 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Why ?

It would mean the bottom half of the premier league would be poorer meaning the gap between top of the championship and the bottom half of the premier league would be much smaller meaning clubs wouldn’t have to gamble their existence to compete. You could also look to abolish parachute payments.

The issue for championship clubs or newly promoted teams is not competing with Liverpool and Man City it’s competing with the likes of Brentford and Fulham who are receiving 50 times more TV money just because they are in the premier league not because they actually add anything.

[essex canary 496]

6 hours ago, Ernie Wise said:

And have a debt in excess of £90m without a pot to p*ss in.

Money League clubs can have bigger wage bills because they have wealthy owners?

Which is precisely why we shouldn't have spent £118 million as we won't catch up with Brighton anyway.

If our majority owners hadn't abrogated responsibility in favour of the careerist Webbers we may have behaved more sensibly. We could make amends if we were to campaign for a fairer settlement for English Football but delusion of  grandeur continues to be the order of the day.

[wr4sb 33]

22 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

It would mean the bottom half of the premier league would be poorer meaning the gap between top of the championship and the bottom half of the premier league would be much smaller meaning clubs wouldn’t have to gamble their existence to compete. You could also look to abolish parachute payments.

The issue for championship clubs or newly promoted teams is not competing with Liverpool and Man City it’s competing with the likes of Brentford and Fulham who are receiving 50 times more TV money just because they are in the premier league not because they actually add anything.

Ah yes, fix it so the 'big clubs' get more money. Why should they get even more money? Isn't the extra they get from league position, times on TV and European competitions etc enough? Just let them all go to the proposed Super League! Although that will probably just end up with the money going to a different 6 or 7 clubs in the EPL then...

And as has been mentioned previously what are EFL clubs going to do with any additional money? Use it on transfer fees, agents fees and higher player wages. How is that going to help clubs stay afloat? 

 

[Haus 259]

On 12/03/2024 at 16:54, Ulfotto said:

It won’t be too long before instead of all premier league clubs getting an equal share of the tv money it moves to each individual club getting a percentage based on there worth so the top 7 keep 90% of the money which is how I understand it works in most teams of the other European leagues. Interesting I feel this model would actually benefit Norwich and the championship clubs as although it would move 7-8 even further away it might reduce the gap between the other 12 teams in the premier league and the championship.

the reason the league is popular though is that its relatively competitive (compared to the spanish league for example)

[aBee 151]

23 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

It would mean the bottom half of the premier league would be poorer meaning the gap between top of the championship and the bottom half of the premier league would be much smaller meaning clubs wouldn’t have to gamble their existence to compete. You could also look to abolish parachute payments.

The issue for championship clubs or newly promoted teams is not competing with Liverpool and Man City it’s competing with the likes of Brentford and Fulham who are receiving 50 times more TV money just because they are in the premier league not because they actually add anything.

What a weird idea. You make it sound like Brentford’s been in the PL forever just pocketing the cash and twirling its evil moustache as plucky EFL clubs come up potless. We both went up together and you had parachute payments that season! It’s tough this season but I think most outside our respective fanbases would probably consider in our last two seasons each in the PL we added a bit more than you guys did. 
 

Getting into the top 6 is very tough but not impossible for “the other 14”. Two clubs managed it last season (and another 2 got Europa League places) and while Chelsea remain bad at least one will again. Why would you want to make that near impossible for a club of Norwich’s stature? Does having been down a couple of seasons mean all you want is to bring down a few smaller clubs who’ve managed to make a better fist of going up and chuck a bit more at Championship clubs who despite being bigger can’t scratch the play offs?

[Badger 2,405]

On 12/03/2024 at 14:21, sgncfc said:

So now the government appointed regulator will force them to reach an agreement. Which will hopefully be a lot more than they would like.

I have seen very little from this govt to even dream that a regulator appointed by them would share money more equally! It goes against everything that they believe in.

To be consistent they would insist that the biggest clubs be allowed to keep everything but their wealth would "trickle down" to ordinary clubs. 

[Ulfotto 635]

1 hour ago, wr4sb said:

Ah yes, fix it so the 'big clubs' get more money. Why should they get even more money? Isn't the extra they get from league position, times on TV and European competitions etc enough? Just let them all go to the proposed Super League! Although that will probably just end up with the money going to a different 6 or 7 clubs in the EPL then...

And as has been mentioned previously what are EFL clubs going to do with any additional money? Use it on transfer fees, agents fees and higher player wages. How is that going to help clubs stay afloat? 

 

I don’t agree with it but it’s just realistic idea to make a more level playing between the bottom half of the premier league and the top half of the championship I believe the EFL want to use the money to reduce parachute payments.

[hogesar 9,676]

Ultimately I suspect its just Prem clubs driving a hard bargain. They'll certainly settle on something before the independent regulator comes in, can almost guarantee that.

[ricardo 7,395]

12 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

I believe the EFL want to use the money to reduce parachute payments.

Which will just solidify the problem further. Relegated clubs will just go bust without parachute paymentsor else have a fire sail which amounts to the same thing because they cannot meet the wage bill.

[Robert N. LiM 4,362]

15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Which will just solidify the problem further. Relegated clubs will just go bust without parachute paymentsor else have a fire sail which amounts to the same thing because they cannot meet the wage bill.

Or not dare buying PL-ready players or paying PL salaries, making them even less competitive than they already are

[Ulfotto 635]

9 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Which will just solidify the problem further. Relegated clubs will just go bust without parachute paymentsor else have a fire sail which amounts to the same thing because they cannot meet the wage bill.

Exactly a better and more sustainable solution is to unequally distribute the premier league tv money to make the bottom half of the premier league and top of the championship more equal. If the upshot of that is the big clubs getting better then that’s fine by me as the horse bolted a long time ago. 
 

And let’s be honest the premier league makes its money from the overseas tv rights. No one outside of uk is buying a tv subscription or paying to watch something like Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace. The draw is the Manchester clubs, spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and maybe Villa, West Ham and Newcastle. The rest are there to make the numbers up.