Is It Time For PL2

[sheffsteel]

20 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

Behave 

Agree....the original PL2 plan was very radical and controversial.

 

It was the create a financial safety net for clubs relegated from PL1 because the gap between PL1 and PL2 wouldn’t be as big,

However the plan was for there to be no relegation from PL2 and to kill off the EFL.

 

So clubs invited into PL2 wasn’t based on merit....it was based on club size, prestige to make PL1 and PL2 appear more attractive.

Under the PL2 format Sunderland’s situation would never happen....they would just stay in PL2.

 

So of course, based on size and reputation SWFC would be invited into a new PL2 league. However as I said....it would be sad for the rest of the EFL clubs they would go part time and gradually become like typical non league sides.

Edited August 18, 2020 by sheffsteel

[Shez]

It’s like getting caught drink driving then suggesting the police force need disbanding because it’s not fit for purpose because you’ve now got points on your license

[sheffsteel]

6 minutes ago, Shez said:

It’s like getting caught drink driving then suggesting the police force need disbanding because it’s not fit for purpose because you’ve now got points on your license

It’s also like saying the car manufacturers are corrupt.

Why give cars top speeds of 130 mph when the legal speed limit is 70 mph.

So instead of paying your speeding fine you blame the car manufacturers for making you do over 100mph on the motorway.

 

It does seem perverse though that there’s such a big market and desire for fast cars...if they legally can’t be used on roads.

Edited August 18, 2020 by sheffsteel

[Harrysgame]

4 hours ago, striker said:

Deby, Charlton, Birmingham, Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Stevenage, Macclesfield...?

It's a bit like insurance you just keep paying in and it's only when you actually have need or engage with them you realise that they are not there to help, and look for ways to protect their own interests.

[Harrysgame]

26 minutes ago, Shez said:

It’s like getting caught drink driving then suggesting the police force need disbanding because it’s not fit for purpose because you’ve now got points on your license

Not really, you expect to be treated fairly. You would object if they said we will put you in court in maybe 1 month time because the home Secretary is changing it from 6 months to a year then and want it to cause you more issues.

[Owling with laughter]

5 hours ago, Bluesteel said:

So ludicrous that clubs have already looked at it 

Yeah, the ones who aren’t in it..

[bigthinrob]

12 hours ago, Manwë said:

 

The EFL rules are made and voted by the Clubs.  It could all change today if the clubs want it.

 

When those rules are set, that's what's applied.  The clubs have agreed that administration is -12 points.  The clubs have agreed that failure to adhere to safety standards is a offence of the game.  The clubs have agreed that clubs who cannot fulfill their fixtures need to be punished.  

 

The EFL don't make the rules, clubs like Sheffield Wednesday, Wigan et Al make the rules.

Look at the make up of the EFL board (or whatever it calls itself) and tell me how it can be representative of the massively varying sizes of clubs within it.

 

It's equivalent of the Premier league representing the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd at the same time as Chesterfield, Port Vale, Fleetwood etc.

 

IF the EFL don't make the rules as you naively suggest. What about the vindictive, 'make the rules up as they go along' toe rags EFL actually abiding by them, instead of twisting the rules to try & get the outcome they were looking for all along. 

 

PS Ask DC if he was party to "Making the rules".

 

Face it pal. They're an out of touch, out of their depth, unfit for purpose bunch of clowns that time has passed them by.

 

Regardless of who "makes the rules", their shambolic corrupt disgrace in the way they have conducted themselves is reason alone to call them into question.

 

I can understand why the likes of Barnsley, Fleetwood, Wycombe would absolutely love their approach in dragging wealthier clubs down to their level, but why any Wednesday supporter would make excuses for them is a mystery.

[bigthinrob]

13 hours ago, Therealrealist said:

Let’s face it the vast majority of efl members don’t have a problem with the efl..we need to stop banging this drum

When you say the "vast majority", I assume you mean the vast majority who haven't got a pot to pi*s in who are more than delighted to see the EFL acting like a cross between Jeremy Corbyn & Chairman Mao in trying to drag all clubs down to the lowest common denominator while the clubs in the Prem get ever more richer. 

 

I assume you've had direct contact with all these clubs "that don't have a problem" with their stance?

 

I bet Wolves "don't have a problem" with the EFL.  I bet Bournemouth don't, clutching their failure payments having pis*sed up the back of the EFL on their way to the Prem. I bet Leicester don't (I bet their ex creditor's do though).

 

Wonder if Derby do, wonder if Birmingham do, wonder if Forest do, wonder if we do. 

 

Wonder if Wigan do with the EFL's scrupulous attention to detail & due diligence when they vetted their new owners. (Maybe they deliberately spoke in a language the EFLs bods couldn't quite understand). Maybe they were too bothered in trying to nail SWFC than doing their fuc*in job.

 

One question.  Are you more bothered about the 'equality' of the situation & the status quo that sees the EFL protecting the interests of the poorer clubs, or are you more bothered about what is best for us at this current time, when for the first time in years we actually have money to invest but are barred from doing so?

 

 

[Nero]

The current PL EFL model structurally doesn't work because of some immovable problems;

 

1. The PL isn't big enough to accommodate all of the clubs who aspire to compete at the top level.

2. The EFL is too big and has too wide a scope to have rules that cover all bases, including the impossible problem caused by parachute payments.

 

The answer is to have;

a. A  36 to 40 team PL set up and

b. A 60 plus team EFL set up.

 

The EFL set up would run with a wage cap and would operate similar to rugby league in its outlook - community based and sustainable - proper honest football - standing - etc. I'm sorry for the likes of Rotherham etc but its impossible to continue as it is and they can win the EFL as a challenge. Also being truthful, many might prefer the EFL version of football.

 

The PL set up would be 2 leagues, no relegation from PL2 except by certain circumstances as used to happen in the old FA run league. Modified parachute payments allowed but no cap on owners spending. PL would be invitation so Sunderland yes, Rotherham no. Celtic and Rangers possibly.

 

All teams would compete in a refurbed FA cup but the league cup would be split in two, the PL version being the undertaken late in the season as clubs at the bottom of PL would have little to play for.

 

Its not perfect but it would work a hell of a lot better than what's happening in football now.

[TheGaffer]

Sorry if this has been said before but only way it could work for me and may be palatable to Epl is to increase the teams to 16 say in each Epl 1 and 2. Then weight the money 2/3 Epl 1, 1/3 Epl 2. Less money per club to start with but also less games. 

[Bluesteel]

2 hours ago, Owling with laughter said:

Yeah, the ones who aren’t in it..

There were a number of clubs with the hump talking about it amongst themselves around 2018

[Manwë]

1 hour ago, Nero said:

PL would be invitation so Sunderland yes, Rotherham no. Celtic and Rangers possibly.

 What's the criteria for the invitation?

 

It seems you are basing it on size, rather than sporting ability and achievements.  If Rotherham are in the same division as us through ability, then don't they have an equal opportunity and chance of success?

 

No relegation?  Madness.

[Harrysgame]

30 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 What's the criteria for the invitation?

 

It seems you are basing it on size, rather than sporting ability and achievements.  If Rotherham are in the same division as us through ability, then don't they have an equal opportunity and chance of success?

 

No relegation?  Madness.

Do 're election like in the old days.

[Dick_Turpin]

2 hours ago, bigthinrob said:

When you say the "vast majority", I assume you mean the vast majority who haven't got a pot to pi*s in who are more than delighted to see the EFL acting like a cross between Jeremy Corbyn & Chairman Mao in trying to drag all clubs down to the lowest common denominator while the clubs in the Prem get ever more richer. 

 

I assume you've had direct contact with all these clubs "that don't have a problem" with their stance?

 

I bet Wolves "don't have a problem" with the EFL.  I bet Bournemouth don't, clutching their failure payments having pis*sed up the back of the EFL on their way to the Prem. I bet Leicester don't (I bet their ex creditor's do though).

 

Wonder if Derby do, wonder if Birmingham do, wonder if Forest do, wonder if we do. 

 

Wonder if Wigan do with the EFL's scrupulous attention to detail & due diligence when they vetted their new owners. (Maybe they deliberately spoke in a language the EFLs bods couldn't quite understand). Maybe they were too bothered in trying to nail SWFC than doing their fuc*in job.

 

One question.  Are you more bothered about the 'equality' of the situation & the status quo that sees the EFL protecting the interests of the poorer clubs, or are you more bothered about what is best for us at this current time, when for the first time in years we actually have money to invest but are barred from doing so?

 

 

Can people not be concerned about the wider issues affecting football as well as support Wednesday? As you look at the little clubs that’s how the Man Utds of this world look at us. All this craving to be part of the big boys club when the big boys don’t give a fig about us. 

[Owling with laughter]

2 hours ago, Nero said:

The current PL EFL model structurally doesn't work because of some immovable problems;

 

1. The PL isn't big enough to accommodate all of the clubs who aspire to compete at the top level.

2. The EFL is too big and has too wide a scope to have rules that cover all bases, including the impossible problem caused by parachute payments.

 

The answer is to have;

a. A  36 to 40 team PL set up and

b. A 60 plus team EFL set up.

 

The EFL set up would run with a wage cap and would operate similar to rugby league in its outlook - community based and sustainable - proper honest football - standing - etc. I'm sorry for the likes of Rotherham etc but its impossible to continue as it is and they can win the EFL as a challenge. Also being truthful, many might prefer the EFL version of football.

 

The PL set up would be 2 leagues, no relegation from PL2 except by certain circumstances as used to happen in the old FA run league. Modified parachute payments allowed but no cap on owners spending. PL would be invitation so Sunderland yes, Rotherham no. Celtic and Rangers possibly.

 

All teams would compete in a refurbed FA cup but the league cup would be split in two, the PL version being the undertaken late in the season as clubs at the bottom of PL would have little to play for.

 

Its not perfect but it would work a hell of a lot better than what's happening in football now.

 

Whats the incentive for the current PL to dilute its income to accommodate another 20? clubs in a PL2 or dilute its attractiveness to the worldwide TV audience? Call it what you want, it’ll still be 2nd tier football and it’s not attractive to a worldwide TV audience.

 

Also who decides which clubs should be deemed attractive enough to be included? You seriously think that’s going to happen, clubs just accepting they’re not big enough or attractive enough to be included?

 

1 hour ago, TheGaffer said:

Sorry if this has been said before but only way it could work for me and may be palatable to Epl is to increase the teams to 16 say in each Epl 1 and 2. Then weight the money 2/3 Epl 1, 1/3 Epl 2. Less money per club to start with but also less games. 

 

Again, what’s the benefit to the current Premier League. Less games = less matchday  revenue added to sharing the TV income amongst more clubs?

 

Nothing in it for them and until there is it’s all wishful thinking.

[Nero]

37 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 What's the criteria for the invitation?

 

It seems you are basing it on size, rather than sporting ability and achievements.  If Rotherham are in the same division as us through ability, then don't they have an equal opportunity and chance of success?

 

No relegation?  Madness.

Lifes not fair.

[crookesowl]

It’s bad enough that we have a “Premier League” AND a “Championship”.

 

Another Premier League is just daft. 
 

That said, the EFL does need revolutionary change. It’s rotten. 

[Dick_Turpin]

6 minutes ago, Nero said:

Lifes not fair.

That seems to be our reason for calling for    a PL2. We just need to get on with it and cut out the persecution complex. 

[Nero]

1 minute ago, Owling with laughter said:

 

Whats the incentive for the current PL to dilute its income to accommodate another 20? clubs in a PL2 or dilute its attractiveness to the worldwide TV audience? Call it what you want, it’ll still be 2nd tier football and it’s not attractive to a worldwide TV audience.

 

Also who decides which clubs should be deemed attractive enough to be included? You seriously think that’s going to happen, clubs just accepting they’re not big enough or attractive enough to be included?

 

 

Again, what’s the benefit to the current Premier League. Less games = less matchday  revenue added to sharing the TV income amongst more clubs?

 

Nothing in it for them and until there is it’s all wishful thinking.

Like it or not, the PL is essentially a commercial entity not a sporting one. Bit like the NFL.

There would still be a big difference in tv revenue between 1 and 2 income. Owners would bridge the gap in income.

The overall pot of money would increase marginally as PLW branding would make the league more attractive. The bigger teams would also be in the league.

Having teams like Bournemouth in the Premiership helps no one except 10000 Bournemouth fans and their russian owner. TV doesnt wany them. Fans dont want them instead of playing bigger clubs.

 

 

[Owling with laughter]

19 minutes ago, Nero said:

Like it or not, the PL is essentially a commercial entity not a sporting one. Bit like the NFL.

There would still be a big difference in tv revenue between 1 and 2 income. Owners would bridge the gap in income.

The overall pot of money would increase marginally as PLW branding would make the league more attractive. The bigger teams would also be in the league.

Having teams like Bournemouth in the Premiership helps no one except 10000 Bournemouth fans and their russian owner. TV doesnt wany them. Fans dont want them instead of playing bigger clubs.

 

 

It just wouldn’t make it more attractive. You’re looking at it with your Wednesday hat on. The worldwide TV audience is interested in the big six of the current Premier League and who they play against. To them it doesn’t matter whether it’s Man U v Bournemouth or Man U v Wednesday. It’s the exclusiveness of the PL that is one of the attractions as well as seeing some of the worlds top players.

 

Wednesday v Derby would hold no more interest for your average fan in Hong Kong than it would Wycombe v Barnsley. It might over here in the UK but not really anywhere else.

 

You say the overall pot of money would increase marginally. How so?

 

And what’s PLW branding?

Edited August 18, 2020 by Owling with laughter