southportdc

Reminds me of this Yes I ******** would

Bailout of £50m in grants and loans to League 1 and 2 clubs according to Dale Johnson. £20m up front and £30m held back to support clubs needing immediate action to prevent winding up.

When did Henry say that? FSG have said they support promotion and relegation. The reason smaller clubs want a closed PL is so they can eventually challenge the big clubs, so I'm not sure why the bigger clubs would want it.

I would guess because it is a way round spending limits - I'm not sure why it's important with the salary cap though. Just something mentioned in the Athletic.

Their aim is pretty openly to make the Premier League easier on their players - in terms of number of games and intensity - in order to focus on Europe. The way the deal is proposed, the clubs with the most votes will get the majority of their income from European games, streaming abroad and commercial rights. The TV deal won't matter that much to them - like parachute payments don't - so they're happy to share that out with the EFL in return for support. They could decide later to keep it all for themselves, but it's much more likely that the clubs at the bottom half o

Also some suggestion in The Athletic that the rules would stop spending on things like branding shirts and stadiums with the owner's name/company. eyes emoji

Absolutely this, but most clubs are at that point anyway. I think there's a salary cap for EFL teams and a limit on agent spending included in the proposals, incidentally. Including, from what's been said so far, for the relegated sides.

It's not naivety, it's simply logic. They already have all the power. They can already do things like block promotion and relegation. The EFL has no say in how many PL member clubs there are or which clubs take those spots. So the logic of 'don't take this deal in case they change it' is completely false, because they can already change the deal on a whim. So consider it from a point of view of every club looking out for themselves. Right now every PL club has an equal say in things like how many - if any - teams are relegated. Under these proposals, the top

Absolutely. The vast majority of clubs have no realistic chance of becoming an established top 6 PL team, so they are losing nothing by agreeing to this. They're being bribed with 5x the money others are offering, in return for being told they can't do what they wouldn't do anyway.

If this were true, don't you think the other 14 PL teams would be in favour? It's their money we're getting. This reduces the gap, rather than reinforcing it. Instead, it means it's even harder for a new club to establish themselves in the top 6. The big clubs want to stop another Leicester, not protect clubs like the pigs.

It's not blackmail at all. It's bribery. Vote for us and you'll get a chunk of money now, and we'll give you a load of money every year going forward. Effective bribery, too. The only drawback is EFL teams are highly unlikely to ever establish themselves in the top six of the Prem. Which is the case either way.

It's entirely possible he has ulterior motives. The Mail is suggesting he might lose his job for the way it leaked, but replacing him won't change much.

I never said its for the good of the game. It's beneficial to the vast majority of EFL clubs, so Parry will support it because that's his job. I don't see any other offer as viable because the EFL unfortunately needs EPL buy in to survive. It cannot be an adversarial relationship because they can just close shop. And there's only two EPL offers in play right now. I hope they don't take it, I just can't see them rejecting it and given the current situation I think it's pretty much a done deal the EFL will support this, the sticking point will be the other

By all accounts a majority of the member clubs support Parry on this. If they reject it and take a bail out on terms all 20 PL clubs support, there's still nothing stopping them from reversing it later. There's nothing stopping them from offering nothing and abolishing relegation, leaving the EFL to fight its own battle. Either bail out we're bought and sold by clubs who can turn the tap off at a moment's notice. But there's not much choice, clubs are going to go to the wall imminently without support. The only difference from the perspective of most EFL

All of the protectionism you describe is more likely if the offer comes from the whole EPL rather than the top 6 alone. There's a reason it was Bolton who wanted to close the EPL shop entirely, and it's Liverpool and United who are selling out the lower Prem clubs to get EFL support. Liverpool and United, and the rest of the top 6, want the gap to be between them and 86 (or 84) other clubs. The other Premier League clubs want the gap to be between 20 and the other 72. They are not going to share 25% of TV revenue, they are not going to abolish parachute paym