Jump to content

Breaking- Premier league re structure


Recommended Posts

,  Scrapping of parachute payments is good but it means that teams that go up won't be able to pay wages like the established teams can without considerable risk, or without putting in relegation clauses. The teams who are secure up there, probably the exalted 9 plus a few others, will be able to risk not having the same clauses as they will be competing against teams that have them. Players won't want to join newly promoted teams for 1 years money then be stuck. Theoretically it's a good idea but in practice I can see it leading to trouble. 

 

The fact the premier league have said they don't like the idea of all this is bizarre, considering the EFL have said they do like it. Surely that's all arse about face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're heading in the same situation /direction that happened to rugby league with the sky money years ago. 

 

It basically killed grass roots level off. 

They made it a closed shop where basically you had to apply to ge into superleague, then had to fit certain criteria on your ground etc. 

It meant you could be promoted like widnes did a few years ago after finishing 6th while runaway winners Featherstone didn't go up. 

 

It's basically killed the game for 80% of the fan base of clubs and become a farce. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what level do the top 9 get to veto new owners? Is it just for prem changes of ownership or Is it for the whole pyramid? A wealthy owner taking over a championship team then going up to upset the status quo in the prem would be bad for them. Can't see em wanting that. 

 

The more this proposal gets looked at and dissected the worse it starts to look. Hopefully the details will continue to come out, the ramifications will continue to be pointed out and the football World will see it for what it is. A power grab by the teams that happen to be in the right place at the right time. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Plonk said:

And that is the problem. It is the only offer and stinks of a stitch up. Yes there are some sweeteners in there. But the league cup has been the only trophy that you have a chance of winning if you’re not in the big six. They see it as a distraction so happy to binit off. The real worry for me ( A’s is always the case when someone makes you a good offer) is what are the long term consequences? We are handing absolute power to six clubs. There would be nothing to stop them bringing in rules to say only the big six can qualify for the champions league. No relegation or promotion for five seasons. A one million pound maximum transfer fee between premier league and championship. You have to look where this could lead, and there would be absolutely nothing the rest of football could do.

Fair enough points.

 

i do wonder though whether the Great Nine might be better friends of the 2nd tier than the Lesser 9. The Lesser 9, like our competitors in the 2nd tier, have their own interest at heart in all do, and that is part of the problem with the current set up-everyone is calculating how to set the rules so that they can bend them to their own benefit. The Great Nine could function kind of like the House of Lords were once supposed to-take a longer view and all. I can’t really pretend that I think this is a wonderful system, but keep on coming back to the fact that the current arrangement is extremely dysfunctional, and in part because of the perverse democracy of self-interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jonboy42 said:

Culture secretary on sky news, Oliver Dowden, gave his thoughts and said it was a “power grab” and would need looking into

 

Looks like the government don't like it, this could go the wrong way for the teams suggesting it and they might find themselves paying money to the EFL with no benefits to them

 

Wonder if Parry will resign if this doesn't happen, actually i know he won't 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the third man said:

 

Looks like the government don't like it, this could go the wrong way for the teams suggesting it and they might find themselves paying money to the EFL with no benefits to them

 

Wonder if Parry will resign if this doesn't happen, actually i know he won't 

Do one question is what will the counter proposal from the plebeian premier league clubs look like? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im seriously close to just turning my back on football for now tbh. Completely going the wrong way with no sign of change. If this doesn't pay off, they'll just try something else. The heart and soul of football is dead and I'm far less passionate about it because of this than I ever have been before. Just sick of all this corrupt garbage. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry of this has already been mentioned but there's a lot of posts "skim" through already.

 

Doest this just smack as a hostile takeover of a business to anyone else? Top clubs using the current economic climate & their wealth to effectively buy the premier League at a hugely discounted rate of £250m

 

The cash to be made available for something this proposterous should easily be in the billions.

 

Just my humble opinion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, latemodelchild said:

The fact the premier league have said they don't like the idea of all this is bizarre, considering the EFL have said they do like it. Surely that's all arse about face. 

 

 The 11 Premiership clubs to be reduced to the status of permanent jobbers for the likes of Man City and Liverpool obviously won't like it.  That's why they are trying to take their votes away. 

 

The arrangements already outlined won't be the end of things.  When the Nine have the power to do whatever they want,  they will alter the deal however they see fit. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact Parry boss of EFLhas come out in favourof move shows it should be rejected.He is basically a PL plant in EFL and is workingin interests of top PL clubs against interests of EFL.

The Championship clubs were short changed in last TV deal which made midweek games available on Sky to no real benefit to them.They lost revenue and got little reward. Sky had lost Spanish football and required more football soChampionship clubs were stitched up with this deal. 

A lot of individuals watch Championship football and viewingfigures for the games on Sky would be interesting. There is a huge argument for Championship negotiating own deal to get a fairer share of income.

When you look at this package it is letting half a dozen clubs run the game in the country whichcan not be a good thing as they would never let grip go once they had it. It also means the Champioship clubs are bailing out the EFL as I am certain they would be entitled to at least a quarter of revenue generated from TV in their own right if viewing figures were looked at.

If this is accepted it will split football in country and two tier system of have and have nots will exist with no possibility of change.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quist said:

The fact Parry boss of EFLhas come out in favourof move shows it should be rejected.He is basically a PL plant in EFL and is workingin interests of top PL clubs against interests of EFL.
 

This exactly.

I wonder what the championship clubs think to him coming out with this. At the end of the day I guess the Premier League clubs can do what they want regardless of what the EFL say or do. Just hope the other non 9 clubs don't vote for it or the government stop it

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Quist said:

The fact Parry boss of EFLhas come out in favourof move shows it should be rejected.He is basically a PL plant in EFL and is workingin interests of top PL clubs against interests of EFL. 



OR

As I have been saying all along since this was uncovered, that this was the long term plan all along and the EFL simply looked for the best possible person to be able to deliver this project and employed Parry to take care of it


It happens so much in business I think it's the most likely scenario

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, marshy said:

Rick Parry just been on BBC breakfast. Thinks its an excellent idea with proof that the top two do genuinely care about the 72 other clubs.

Wow, well, if he believes that then shut the doors and turn off the lights.

Yes saw that too and promoted my reply above.  Can't believe he can come out in support of it without discussing with the club's he is supposed to represent. He should be shown the door and go and join the PL if they wil have him

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, marshy said:

Rick Parry just been on BBC breakfast. Thinks its an excellent idea with proof that the top two do genuinely care about the 72 other clubs.

Wow, well, if he believes that then shut the doors and turn off the lights.

 

Former Liverpool CEO Rick Parry you mean is behind this Liverpool idea?

Indeed.  Shut the front door!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting take on it from David Conn in The Guardian today. He seems to brush concerns around allowing nine clubs greater voting powers than everyone else under the carpet, though.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/oct/11/plan-to-mend-the-great-crack-in-football-pyramid-should-not-be-swept-off-the-table

 

Plan to mend football pyramid's great crack should not be swept off table

 

Liverpool and Manchester United have infuriated the Premier League, which was kept in the dark, but the premise of their proposal to reunite with the EFL is sound

 

There are so many extraordinary elements in the Liverpool and Manchester United proposals to reshape English football, and so much understandable scepticism, that the historic move at the heart of it is in danger of being missed.

 

So, for clarity, it really is true that the US owners of these two fabulously rich football corporations have produced an offer that has not been forthcoming and never seemed possible from any Premier League leadership figures for 28 years.

There are, undoubtedly, some self-serving elements to their prospectus but by far the most significant is the proposal that the Premier League should share a net 25% of its future TV deals with the English Football League, and provide £250m immediately to help the 72 EFL clubs through their financial crisis.

 

That is an offer, finally after a generation, to rejoin the top division with the three below and repair the vast, calamitous financial gap caused by the breakaway of the First Division from the Football League to form the Premier League in 1992.

The wholly negative reaction of the government to this plan for huge financial reparations, which also includes increased money for the FA and grassroots good causes – approximately 8.5% of annual net Premier League TV money – seems bizarre.

For months throughout this pandemic and its financial crisis for the game and its cherished pyramid, the culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, has been urging the Premier League to use its financial might to help the “football family”.

 

The Premier League has dithered, delayed and produced nothing solid, despite being told in the spring the EFL had an immediate £250m hole and that many clubs face ruin through a Covid-19 winter of matches in empty grounds. Steve Parish, the chairman of Crystal Palace, recently argued that “Premier League clubs are being unfairly singled out” and should not have to share their money.

 

“No other industry is asking firms to bail out competitors,” Parish wrote in the Sunday Times before offering some comparisons. “The supermarkets aren’t instructed to help the corner shops. Deliveroo aren’t bailing out your local cafe.”

Quite apart from the assumption that Selhurst Park counts as a supermarket among corner shops, these are dreary arguments that do not merit earnest engagement. It is the kind of reasoning, for the maintenance of inequality, that also makes it more difficult for the Premier League’s middling clubs to be outraged about Liverpool, United and the rest of the big six looking to cement their own power.

 

With these proposals, United and Liverpool, whose majority owner, John W Henry, is said to have been contemplating the great crack in the English football pyramid for years, have thumped through the last months of stagnation and presented a coming together that has not seemed possible for 25 years.

 

The idea of the EFL having anything like a 25% share of Premier League TV deals last disappeared in the dust in 1995, when with Rick Parry as the chief executive, the top flight did offer 20% but the Football League board, to the fury of many clubs, rejected it.

 

When Parry took on the chairmanship of the EFL only one extremely long year ago, he appreciated that the root cause of the 72 clubs’ various financial agonies is the eye-watering gap with the Premier League and the parachute payments that further distort the landscape in the Championship.

 

When he has spoken up and made that plain, including calling parachute payments “an evil that needs to be eradicated”, he has generally been patronised. The Premier League’s administrators and smaller clubs seem to have been proceeding on the basis they would not be seriously pressured into sharing their money more equitably, as they haven’t for the past quarter-century.

 

To be fair, nobody except Parry seems to have been aware that Henry, across the Atlantic, was informing himself about all of this, apparently becoming more knowledgeable about the bitter 1992 breakaway than many English football people who really should know that history better. And of all people who could be expected to support the idea of putting the game back together, it turns out to be Joel Glazer, of the family whose £525m debt-loading, 2005 takeover of United has been such a burden at Old Trafford and caused so much rancour and unhappiness.

 

Of course it is also true this proposal does not come without some pain but that Henry and Glazer do not envisage feeling any of it themselves. There is a planned consolidation of voting power within the Premier League of the big six plus the three outside clubs that have been in the top flight longest, Everton, Southampton and West Ham, and that is simply not a good look. The 25% for the EFL is mostly to be found by reducing the Premier League to 18 clubs – the original 1990 FA proposal that was never implemented – and scrapping parachute payments, rather than ceding the money out of Old Trafford or Anfield revenues.

 

United and Liverpool envisage their time being freed for more Champions League matches, which will happen anyway from 2024 when Uefa’s competition is inevitably expanded, and lucrative pre-season tours. They insist their proposals are not an effort to seize more of the Premier League TV money but it is likely other Premier League clubs will get less. It will make it more difficult to break into the top six; the more even competition will be created in the relegation zone.

 

So, quite rightly, there should be a battle over the detail of these proposals. If the other 14 Premier League clubs want to fight for the maintenance of the one club, one vote system that is understandable; most football people would agree with it.

But the heart of the plan should not be swept off the table, which is for the Premier League to finally reconnect with the EFL, mend the gap and ease the senseless worry that loved and historic clubs will go bust in the time of football’s greatest boom.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the proposal are a joke, they are holding the EFL existence over a barrel then demanding we give the top 6 teams all the power in the land.

 

The only positive from the system is they have finally admitted that parachute payment need to be scrapped and the income the EFL get compared to the Premier League is a complete joke.

 

But the scrapping of the League cup and the charity shield and making the league smaller. This is not to reduce games, if you wanted to reduce game get rid of the pointless international friendlies this will save you probably 8 games a season and give back 8-10 weeks wasted for international breaks.

 

No Man Utd and Liverpool are only interest in friendly in Asia and the USA as they will line their pockets more.

 

Can someone explain to me though if those in power is based on tenure in the league why are Man City one of the nine as they are way down the league in 11th behind Newcastle, West Ham and Aston Villa.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, room0035 said:

F

 

 

Can someone explain to me though if those in power is based on tenure in the league why are Man City one of the nine as they are way down the league in 11th behind Newcastle, West Ham and Aston Villa.

 

 

Length of current stay? Or were you being ironic to make a point?

Link to comment
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...