Poll: Premier League Shake-Up?
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,109
The flip side is that it's not Parry's place to decide on the PL.
This whole thing couldn't of been handled soo much better, if the yanks included everyone concerned in the first place.
He hasn't though. As some of the EFL clubs have said themselves, it's down to the PL to sort their politics out. Parry has agreed a deal that benefits the EFL and it's now down to the PL to agree it between themselves.
Caporegime
I'm in no way surprised that the EFL are just looking at the free money.
Why can't the other PL teams propose similar rescue deal but without the idiocy of control by the 'big 6 + 3'? Their votes would surpass that of at least those 6.
Why can't the other PL teams propose similar rescue deal but without the idiocy of control by the 'big 6 + 3'? Their votes would surpass that of at least those 6.
I reckon the argument for the big 6 is that without them the league is a bit poor. Who;s up for watching Brighton vs West Brom on ppv?
Anyone?
Caporegime
But what would they honestly do instead? Form a 6-9 team break away league and play each 3 times each, with 3rd games in foreign countries to get the cash. That would be even more boring.
Because they don't care about the EFL and don't want to help? As I've mentioned several times now, the only way you can save the EFL without asking the PL clubs to take a pay-cut (which none will do) is by cutting the PL to 18 teams. That can be done without handing the keys over to the top 6.
The threat is that they'll rejoin the EFL and the new top tier will be those + Norwich, Derby etc. Utd - Derby is no more or less appealing to broadcasters than Utd - West Brom, is it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,109
Soldato
I'm sure some PL clubs won't like a 18 team PL but that isn't the end of the world for me. LC meh I don't care about that either. In fact the only thing I have issue with is the power grab by the big clubs. That can not be allowed to happen and it shouldn't be allowed on principle. That would be the death nail in any club rising to their level and protect the big clubs when no club has a automatic right to be there. The more I hear about this the more it makes me angry at the sheer greed and arrogance of the big clubs. Thankfully the majority of fans of all the big clubs feel the same as me on the power grab.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,109
One club, one vote. End of/
Unsurprisingly the proposal has been rejected by the PL but they've released a statement saying they will work together on a "strategic plan for the future structures and financing of English football". Let the negotiations begin.
This could drag on for a couple of years but if I had to guess on the outcome of this then I'd say we end up with no League Cup (as early as next season), the 14 vote majority will be cut to any majority, for example 11 votes in a 20 team League or 10 in an 18 team League and a bigger slice of overseas money goes to the big boys. The big question and what will be hardest to call is whether the League gets cut to 18 sides. Without this it's difficult to see how any long term funding can be passed down to the EFL, beyond any short term bailout.
edit: and it's also being reported that the PL are only offering a £50m short term bailout to the EFL, not the £250m they need. It was stated in a select committee meeting today that the PL are also putting lots of unreasonable conditions in place with this offer too. Those horrible "small 14" being selfish again, putting their own interests ahead of the EFL
edit2: and this £50m isn't even £50m. It's £20m + £30m worth of loans. Basically they're offering the EFL a plaster for a knife wound. Hopefully that will get a few clubs through the next 6 months but who knows how many will go into administration while the PL take years putting together their plan.
This could drag on for a couple of years but if I had to guess on the outcome of this then I'd say we end up with no League Cup (as early as next season), the 14 vote majority will be cut to any majority, for example 11 votes in a 20 team League or 10 in an 18 team League and a bigger slice of overseas money goes to the big boys. The big question and what will be hardest to call is whether the League gets cut to 18 sides. Without this it's difficult to see how any long term funding can be passed down to the EFL, beyond any short term bailout.
edit: and it's also being reported that the PL are only offering a £50m short term bailout to the EFL, not the £250m they need. It was stated in a select committee meeting today that the PL are also putting lots of unreasonable conditions in place with this offer too. Those horrible "small 14" being selfish again, putting their own interests ahead of the EFL
edit2: and this £50m isn't even £50m. It's £20m + £30m worth of loans. Basically they're offering the EFL a plaster for a knife wound. Hopefully that will get a few clubs through the next 6 months but who knows how many will go into administration while the PL take years putting together their plan.
Last edited:
I see both LFC/MUFC bottled it when it came to the vote, find it a bit hypocritical that they will both go behind the rest of the leagues back with the discussions between themselves and the EFL/parry but then won’t vote to say they want it, I mean they have just voted against their own proposal 
lol there wasn't a vote? They're not going to put something to a vote that doesn't have a chance of passing.
The PL always release statements saying the clubs unanimously/all 20 clubs agreed on x, just like during all the fighting over the restart. Every statement they released claimed all 20 clubs were committed to completing the season despite it obviously not being the case. Liverpool and Utd have set their position out and the negotiations are going to begin - this was never going to be agreed at the first round of talks but they've started the ball rolling and will almost certainly end with them better off than they are now.
What will now be interesting is the reaction to the plans that David Bernstein, Gary Neville, Andy Burnham and Mervyn King are due to release soon. They're likely to include a lot of the good parts of Project Big Picture. Who are the small 14 going to hide behind this time when they decide they don't want to share their money with the EFL? It's easy to share when you want to share with somebody richer than you, it's not so fun when you're asked to share with the poor guy.
edit: This tweet sums up what has and will happen:
Poll was a bit misleading, its not a choice between 18 teams or EFL dying, the government correctly stated this reform is not needed to send the EFL a bailout.
Thankfully the idea has been shut down. It was ridiculous.
Control handed to the big 6 clubs.
This would then allow them later to impose things like B teams on the EFL.
Scrapping of domestic cups.
Significant changes to way TV revenue is spread out, there was already in the plans to stop the sale of international rights, and replace with clubs selling them individually.
The big 6 would be able to veto any club takeovers (I wonder why this is).
No coincidence this idea was born within months a non big 6 club won the title.
The EFL will get a bailout by the EPL, the government have already said they will step in with regulation if it doesnt happen naturally.
Thankfully the idea has been shut down. It was ridiculous.
Control handed to the big 6 clubs.
This would then allow them later to impose things like B teams on the EFL.
Scrapping of domestic cups.
Significant changes to way TV revenue is spread out, there was already in the plans to stop the sale of international rights, and replace with clubs selling them individually.
The big 6 would be able to veto any club takeovers (I wonder why this is).
No coincidence this idea was born within months a non big 6 club won the title.
The EFL will get a bailout by the EPL, the government have already said they will step in with regulation if it doesnt happen naturally.
Caporegime
They aren't a charity though. Weird how nobody is asking Tescos to bail out cornershops.
I think your trust in the government is misplaced. Oliver Dowden spoke at a select committee this morning and he was grilled on the two points you raise.
Firstly though on saving the EFL in the short term and saving it in the long term, which was the point of the poll (I should have been clearer). Yes, absolutely you wouldn't need reform to find the £200m odd the EFL needs to save it this season - as has been posted in this thread they could have raised that money by selling off 20% of future revenues. That would obviously make it even weaker moving forwards but could be done. The EFL has been eating itself alive long before covid though. EFL sides are racking up huge losses year on year, spending every penny it generates in wages alone, with clubs on the brink or going into administration every season. This is a direct consequence of the huge difference in revenue. This gap in revenue encourages clubs to overspend and once one does, everybody follows because if you don't then you cannot compete.
There are two solutions to the above, you ask the 20 PL teams to give up a greater share of their money. Yes, I laughed too. Or you cut the PL to 18 sides and because you're then only splitting revenue between 18 instead of 20 sides, the PL can sustain the EFl without asking it's members to lose money.
Now on the two government points you made. Oliver Dowden was asked about the bailout today and all he could say is he's been assured no club would go to the wall. When he was pushed he couldn't provide anything to assure anybody. When asked about Project Big Picture he was asked who he represented, the 72 EFL sides or the 14 PL sides and the MP questioning him went on to explain that those sides are asking for lots of unreasonable conditions to be placed on the EFL in regards to any bailout. And finally regarding regulation and the government and the supporter lead review - this was something the conservatives said they were going to do anyway and he was asked why is it now a threat if an agreement isn't reached? His answer was some waffle about timing. In other words it's not happening.
edit: and the PL have made their bailout offer. They've offered £20m + £30m of loans to League 1 and 2 clubs of the £250m asked for.
Last edited:
Whatever the issues right now, the big picture idea was not the solution. That was insanity.
The problem facing the 14 PL clubs, is that there is a revenue grab going on from the big 6, this clearly was going to be accelerated in the big picture, where there was an immediate change in the international part of the revenue, meaning those big 6 who you consider the more generous were not losing out.
I do agree with you though that the EPL should be coughing up what is needed, however I disagree that the EPL needs to go down to 18 teams to fund it, just send what is needed and get on with it.
However the money perhaps should not be entirely unconditional either, it is probably a reasonable expectation to expect expensive player acquisitions to cease, and salary burdens to be reduced over the upcoming years. I dont think the money should be in the form of loans, it clearly needs to be a grant.
As for future tv revenues, I wouldnt be against it been shared with the EFL, but again big picture is not needed for that, you are more likely to get 14 EPL clubs onside if the big 6 were not trying to grab more of the EPL money, the big 6 hate the current distribution of the money.
As you correctly stated the championship has been running unsustainable for several years pre covid, I remember in our promotion season (Leicester), there was a table posted of annual losses and something like 3/4 of the league were in 8 figure annual losses. All chasing the EPL dream. We need to remember the bailout is not to support that model, it is to compensate for non attendance at games, all the EFL clubs themselves need to be doing their own part as well in cutting squad costs.
The problem facing the 14 PL clubs, is that there is a revenue grab going on from the big 6, this clearly was going to be accelerated in the big picture, where there was an immediate change in the international part of the revenue, meaning those big 6 who you consider the more generous were not losing out.
I do agree with you though that the EPL should be coughing up what is needed, however I disagree that the EPL needs to go down to 18 teams to fund it, just send what is needed and get on with it.
However the money perhaps should not be entirely unconditional either, it is probably a reasonable expectation to expect expensive player acquisitions to cease, and salary burdens to be reduced over the upcoming years. I dont think the money should be in the form of loans, it clearly needs to be a grant.
As for future tv revenues, I wouldnt be against it been shared with the EFL, but again big picture is not needed for that, you are more likely to get 14 EPL clubs onside if the big 6 were not trying to grab more of the EPL money, the big 6 hate the current distribution of the money.
As you correctly stated the championship has been running unsustainable for several years pre covid, I remember in our promotion season (Leicester), there was a table posted of annual losses and something like 3/4 of the league were in 8 figure annual losses. All chasing the EPL dream. We need to remember the bailout is not to support that model, it is to compensate for non attendance at games, all the EFL clubs themselves need to be doing their own part as well in cutting squad costs.
Project Big Picture as a single proposal wasn't the solution but there were lots of good elements in it and the biggest being the shared tv revenue. Until you close the gap in revenue between the EFL and PL then you will always have this issue. You can talk about salary caps and spending limits all you want but clubs will hire lawyers to get around these. You only have to look at what's already gone on in the EFL, with clubs selling their stadiums to their owners to get around FFP. The jump in revenue from the Championship to the PL is so big that clubs are encouraged to gamble. Take that incentive away and they have no reason to spend beyond their means.
Regarding the point about cutting the League to 18, this is only required in relation to the long term funding for the EFL not the short term bailout. And I couldn't disagree more regarding more sides being willing to share had it not been for this proposal. The other 14 clubs have already made it clear that they don't want to fund the bailout, let alone give money away moving forwards. A lot of people don't want to admit it but the other 14 PL clubs are as greedy as the top 6 - they don't want to share with their poorer neighbours in the EFL just like the big 6 don't want to share with them. This is why reducing to 18 teams is the only realistic solution. No PL side has to end up with less money. PL revenues won't change much, if at all, if the League is cut to 18 because nobody is paying for Burnley etc, but you have two fewer teams to share the money with. The £200m odd that would have gone to those sides is now available for the EFL. Throw in the money from parachute payments that everybody in the EFL want scrapped and you've got £300m+ more than now to give to the EFL without a PL side losing a penny.
The other very good idea which hasn't got much mention is the bit about reserving a percentage of TV money to go towards stadium and infrastructure work. This was something Alan Sugar wanted the PL to do when he was still running Spurs but everybody was shortsighted and just wanted to take the money and run. This idea would stop clubs spending every penny on transfers and wages and encourage clubs to improve their stadiums and facilities.
