Proposed overhaul of the English game

Rayne Wooney

Christ Liverpool owners really are dreamers.

Where did Fenway sporting goods get the nerve to propose radical changes to the premier league?

It’s a list of people who will be paid off for the real purpose, ie 6 clubs having all the power.

Zebra3

Funny thing about the "Big 6" trying to seize power....

When the top clubs were breaking away from the FL in the early 90s, it was because the Big 5 of the time (Liverpool, Everton, MU, Arsenal, Spurs) didn't want to share tv money (from ITV) with the other divisions.

They all backed ITV showing the PL. It was the other clubs led by Ken Bates (who despised ITV as they only showed up at SB when MU or so were in town) wanted BSkyB in as they promised to show the "smaller" clubs.

I wonder how different history would be if ITV had been showing the PL in its' infancy. Sky Sports did an incredible job making it "a thing".


And of the Big 5 of the early 90s, between three of them, they've racked up one PL title. :pac:

Agent Coulson

European Super League gets closer and closer.

Skylinehead

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Christ Liverpool owners really are dreamers.

Where did Fenway sporting goods get the nerve to propose radical changes to the premier league?

It’s a list of people who will be paid off for the real purpose, ie 6 clubs having all the power.

Umm, dunno if you heard, but your lot are in on it too.

As would all the Big 6.

eigrod

Zebra3 wrote: »

Funny thing about the "Big 6" trying to seize power....

When the top clubs were breaking away from the FL in the early 90s, it was because the Big 5 of the time (Liverpool, Everton, MU, Arsenal, Spurs) didn't want to share tv money (from ITV) with the other divisions.

They all backed ITV showing the PL. It was the other clubs led by Ken Bates (who despised ITV as they only showed up at SB when MU or so were in town) wanted BSkyB in as they promised to show the "smaller" clubs.

I wonder how different history would be if ITV had been showing the PL in its' infancy. Sky Sports did an incredible job making it "a thing".


And of the Big 5 of the early 90s, between three of them, they've racked up one PL title. :pac:

On the flip side, all 5 are ever presents in the PL, unlike most other clubs.

Fitz*

I think a lot of the proposed changes actually could be good. Divulging the massive TV money throughout the whole ladder is the standout one but I like the idea of play offs and reduced numbers of teams in the PL & fixture congestion. I do hope the Christmas schedule stays though!

But the voting changes is obviously a bad one and does not equate fairness which is needed in both short term and long term.

The loan idea is bad IMO. A club in theory could essentially have a B team rise through the ladder and the club could then loan 4 promising younger players to that team to gain experience in the PL and the club have an internal farm club every season. Possibly to sell the players it not good enough or keep if good enough. I'm aware this already happens but having 4 at one club at one time in England changes the dynamic. Chelsea already abuse the loan system but being able to do it in England changes things, and then also the way Man City own clubs in so many countries now. This rule change is ripe for picking for them.

Between this proposed idea on the voting change, and the new PPV market, there is just an awful stink of greed coming out of the PL lately.

Fitz*

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Christ Liverpool owners really are dreamers.

Where did Fenway sporting goods get the nerve to propose radical changes to the premier league?

It’s a list of people who will be paid off for the real purpose, ie 6 clubs having all the power.

Congratulations. We have a winner.

Rayne Wooney

Skylinehead wrote: »

Umm, dunno if you heard, but your lot are in on it too.

As would all the Big 6.

They’ve nothing to lose by saying they’d get behind it, it’s an outrageous idea to be fair.

The PL will never give in to the likes of Liverpool Arsenal and United, it’s more likely they’ll come to the table if the big European sides start making noise about a European Super League which would effectively make the PL redundant. An ESL would be bad for the sport IMO.

thebaz

I'd agree with bringing league down to 18 - would improve quality -
Do teams really care about winning the League cup, never mind the Charity shield - The Champions league has totally devalued even the FA Cup.

JPA

I would disagree with pretty much all the proposals. The English football pyramid is full of huge clubs, surely the strongest in the world.

There is room for 20 teams in the top league.

gormdubhgorm

I clicked on this naively thinking it would be about all of English football and keeping community clubs afloat.
I was wrong.

Sutton United in South London Surrey - who play in the Vanarama National League show how clubs are really struggling. The had to invent a "United We Stand" club in the hope to raise £50,000 to keep the club alive.

https://www.suttonunited.net/product/united-we-stand-2020-contribution/

They can no longer rent out facilities because of COVID19 for example. Which was another part of thier revenue as well as missing attendances. I see no mention of National League football in this proposal.

Francie Barrett

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I clicked on this naively thinking it would be about all of English football and keeping community clubs afloat.
I was wrong.

Sutton United in South London Surrey - who play in the Vanarama National League show how clubs are really struggling. The had to invent a "United We Stand" club in the hope to raise £50,000 to keep the club alive.

https://www.suttonunited.net/product/united-we-stand-2020-contribution/

They can no longer rent out facilities because of COVID19 for example. Which was another part of thier revenue as well as missing attendances. I see no mention of National League football in this proposal.

£100 million one-off gift to the FA to cover its coronavirus losses, the non-league game, the women’s game, the grassroots

.

Guy:Incognito

Fitz* wrote: »

but I like the idea of play offs .

Not sure how to break this to you, but theres already playoffs.

The Lost Sheep

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Not sure how to break this to you, but theres already playoffs.

Slightly different where it would now be a promotion/relegation playoff. Thats big big difference...

Guy:Incognito

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Slightly different where it would now be a promotion/relegation playoff. Thats big big difference...

If anything it just protects the PL clubs more. Moving from 3 down to 2 down and the possibility of a 3rd just means that less teams will be coming up.

Morrison J

Fitz* wrote: »

I like the idea of play offs

That's the worst idea of the lot imo. Like last season could easily have been a club in Villa who spent millions upon millions against a club like Cardiff who are on a shoe string. The premier League team has far too many advantages for that game to be an even playing field more times than not.

.G.

JPA wrote: »

I would disagree with pretty much all the proposals. The English football pyramid is full of huge clubs, surely the strongest in the world.

There is room for 20 teams in the top league.

There is room for 20 but by removing two and binning the league Cup they make space for a far more lucrative increase in the amount European games!

sabat

What's the point in expanding the Champions League when it's already full of makeweights? Unless there's some long term secret plan to incorporate MLS teams...

Harry Palmr

The expanded CL is coming like it or not so at least this way the PL clubs will be in a better position to compete even if the first group stage is a total bore and walkover.

DM_7

.G. wrote: »

There is room for 20 but by removing two and binning the league Cup they make space for a far more lucrative increase in the amount European games!

More space for summer tours and even a winter friendly when on the warm weather training camp.

Fr Tod Umptious

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If anything it just protects the PL clubs more. Moving from 3 down to 2 down and the possibility of a 3rd just means that less teams will be coming up.

Some body asked earlier why would the (non big 6) premier league teams support giving away control.
The above is a perfect example of why.
It will make them safer in a richer premier league.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

Funny thing about the "Big 6" trying to seize power....

When the top clubs were breaking away from the FL in the early 90s, it was because the Big 5 of the time (Liverpool, Everton, MU, Arsenal, Spurs) didn't want to share tv money (from ITV) with the other divisions.

They all backed ITV showing the PL. It was the other clubs led by Ken Bates (who despised ITV as they only showed up at SB when MU or so were in town) wanted BSkyB in as they promised to show the "smaller" clubs.

I wonder how different history would be if ITV had been showing the PL in its' infancy. Sky Sports did an incredible job making it "a thing".


And of the Big 5 of the early 90s, between three of them, they've racked up one PL title. :pac:

It was Spurs' owner Alan Sugar that got Sky the rights. He gave them ITV's offer so they could overbid. Nothing to do with him supplying the STBs for Sky and seeing big profits for him personally obviously.

LuckyLloyd

It’s a good opportunity for a much needed overhaul of the game. Many of the suggestions I would hugely agree with. The Community Shield and League Cup are long past their sell bye date and we’re increasingly seeing two clubs at the top level each year who are way out of their depth. I also like the playoff idea. It would be exciting but also help to keep the barrier to the top level that bit higher.

With the lower levels on their knees this is the time to seize control and push through change. Football is a sport uniquely resistant to change at every turn, but the EFL has no power to resist a huge cash injection at this time. People may not like the political realities at play, but you get to express strength at a time of crisis.

Some of this will be bargained down of course, but it’s a very narrow range of clubs that i) don’t need the money created by these proposals ii) feel so secure in their top level status that pulling up the drawbridge a nudge isn’t to their benefit iii) aren’t one of the clubs empowered by the voting changes. So you might be surprised at how it will play out.

irelandrover

I'd agree with a lot of whats proposed. I wouldn't cancel the league cup but maybe the teams in Europe play an under 23 team. Obviously the changes to voting rights are a load of crap. The spread of money rather than parachute payments seems good.

Mitch Connor

the 6 vote piece is the one this will ultimately get stuck on - because the fear (well founded to be fair) will be the 6 clubs will vote for stuff completely at odds with the well-being of everyone else. They may claim fairness, but you jus thave to look at votes for things like the 39th game.

There will also be pieces in the detail - i read somewhere that teams would have the ability to play 8 games on their own PPV platform and keep all profits. That is huge for a team like Liverpool. United too, if they somehow keep their popularity despite being rubbish. I didn't see that in the orignial reports.

As I have said before, I think there are valid arguments and proposals here - and just looking at the state of English football and the fate of clubs like Bury, you can see that something needs to be done. There does need to be an overhaul of the game in england - but there is going to be no trust that the Big 6 are the correct people to put in charge of that. Just look at how badly United is ran, why the fook would you want those guys being an even bigger say of football in general.

noodler

The idea of giving a relegated EPL team a play off second chance versus Championship clubs is poison to me.

Anything that dilutes the principle of pooled TV revenue too.


It's seems like hostage negotiation stuff tbh. Essentially give us the above terms that **** over the little guy long term or we won't save the little guy short term.

kksaints

noodler wrote: »

The idea of giving a relegated EPL team a play off second chance versus Championship clubs is poison to me.

Anything that dilutes the principle of pooled TV revenue too.


It's seems like hostage negotiation stuff tbh. Essentially give us the above terms that **** over the little guy long term or we won't save the little guy short term.

The playoff proposal is how it's done in quite a few countries such as here, Germany and Russia. I like the idea the promotion/relegation playoffs, some of the best drama that I've experienced in football has come from the LOI playoffs.
The voting rights proposal is the major sticking point I feel, looks like and is an attempted power grab by the traditional powerhouses to maintain their monopoly on the title and the precious champions league spots.

Mitch Connor

kksaints wrote: »

The playoff proposal is how it's done in quite a few countries such as here, Germany and Russia. I like the idea the promotion/relegation playoffs, some of the best drama that I've experienced in football has come from the LOI playoffs.
The voting rights proposal is the major sticking point I feel, looks like and is an attempted power grab by the traditional powerhouses to maintain their monopoly on the title and the precious champions league spots.

Can you expand on how you think this proposal cements bg 6 in the euro places?
Not saying it doesn't but I'd like to see why peole think that.

For example, if FFP is brought in line with Uefa FFP rules, it does make a difference, but what is the argument that the english game should have a different rule set (that can see teams punished when they make europe because the English rule set is currently more lax).

I suppose you can argue City may not have got away with their infractions if both the PL and Uefa were paying attention a few years ago - and thus their accent to the top may have been slowed. At the same time, Liverpool have got their without those FFP issues (that we know of or suspect) so growing within the rules is possible.

Would Everton, Leeds or Wolves have been curtailed prior to now under these proposals?

There is also the obvious argument that they wouldn't propose this if it didn't benefit them massively - which is possibly true. But also, its the only plan on the table for any sort of restructure of football in England. It is badly needed, even if not this plan, and it is more damning on the PL and FA that it is, for the main, Liverpool that have put it on the table.

kksaints

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Can you expand on how you think this proposal cements bg 6 in the euro places?
Not saying it doesn't but I'd like to see why peole think that.

For example, if FFP is brought in line with Uefa FFP rules, it does make a difference, but what is the argument that the english game should have a different rule set (that can see teams punished when they make europe because the English rule set is currently more lax).

I suppose you can argue City may not have got away with their infractions if both the PL and Uefa were paying attention a few years ago - and thus their accent to the top may have been slowed. At the same time, Liverpool have got their without those FFP issues (that we know of or suspect) so growing within the rules is possible.

Would Everton, Leeds or Wolves have been curtailed prior to now under these proposals?

There is also the obvious argument that they wouldn't propose this if it didn't benefit them massively - which is possibly true. But also, its the only plan on the table for any sort of restructure of football in England. It is badly needed, even if not this plan, and it is more damning on the PL and FA that it is, for the main, Liverpool that have put it on the table.

With regards the European sports and attempts to maintain them for the big six, the things that stand out are:
Wide ranging veto including club ownership (Possibly could be used to prevent new wealthy owners to come into English football like the Saudis linked to Newcastle)
New rules for TV income with a proposal to base some of it on performance over three years in te league ( Seems like an attempt to reduce the impact of one bad season by averaging the income out over 3 seasons. Something similar was done in Argentina with regards to relegation where a 3 year average position was done to decide the relegation spots. It was done to prevent the big Buenos Aires clubs from been relegated. It failed as River Plate were so bad for a few years that they got relegated in 2011.)
The FFP regulations in line wit UEFA also stands out as it attempts to stop clubs doing a Man City and spending the way to the top.

Mitch Connor

kksaints wrote: »

With regards the European sports and attempts to maintain them for the big six, the things that stand out are:
Wide ranging veto including club ownership (Possibly could be used to prevent new wealthy owners to come into English football like the Saudis linked to Newcastle)
New rules for TV income with a proposal to base some of it on performance over three years in te league ( Seems like an attempt to reduce the impact of one bad season by averaging the income out over 3 seasons. Something similar was done in Argentina with regards to relegation where a 3 year average position was done to decide the relegation spots. It was done to prevent the big Buenos Aires clubs from been relegated. It failed as River Plate were so bad for a few years that they got relegated in 2011.)
The FFP regulations in line wit UEFA also stands out as it attempts to stop clubs doing a Man City and spending the way to the top.

The distribtion of TV money argument doesnt stack up with respect the impact of one bad season, I would say it points to a much deeper change of distribution. as currently one bad season doesn't really make any difference. TV money is relatively similar between positions of the league - the difference between 1st and 5th for example isn't a chasm. the bigger difference is number of times shown on TV. So I guess taking 3 years performance into account is an attempt to smooth out differences in the final positions somewhat - but could mean more.

There is no talk of relegation places being done on an average so I'm not sure on that argument.

the City spend their way to the top bit is the most obvious one - but as I pointed out Liverpool are better than them, without breaching FFP rules in the process. Arguably their 'privilidege' as an historic club with a bigger fan base than City, thus better sponsorship etc makes it easier for them in that respect. Liverpool, for example, have a greater FFP allowance than a smaller club like Wolves or Leeds - as their revenues are much higher. Same for United, obviously.

I do think FFP should allow for cash injections with no loan obligation from the owner, without any limit or penalty. If the City owner wants to fund a billion into City and it doesn't put City in any financial danger should he decide to bugger off.... who cares? I won't be happy as a United fan but that is no argument!

kksaints

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The distribtion of TV money argument doesnt stack up with respect the impact of one bad season, I would say it points to a much deeper change of distribution. as currently one bad season doesn't really make any difference. TV money is relatively similar between positions of the league - the difference between 1st and 5th for example isn't a chasm. the bigger difference is number of times shown on TV. So I guess taking 3 years performance into account is an attempt to smooth out differences in the final positions somewhat - but could mean more.

There is no talk of relegation places being done on an average so I'm not sure on that argument.

the City spend their way to the top bit is the most obvious one - but as I pointed out Liverpool are better than them, without breaching FFP rules in the process. Arguably their 'privilidege' as an historic club with a bigger fan base than City, thus better sponsorship etc makes it easier for them in that respect. Liverpool, for example, have a greater FFP allowance than a smaller club like Wolves or Leeds - as their revenues are much higher. Same for United, obviously.

I do think FFP should allow for cash injections with no loan obligation from the owner, without any limit or penalty. If the City owner wants to fund a billion into City and it doesn't put City in any financial danger should he decide to bugger off.... who cares? I won't be happy as a United fan but that is no argument!

The relegation example from Argentina was more of an example of why averaging out football league tables over multiple years is more of an attempt to favour the larger traditional clubs by allowing them time to recover from one awful season. It has nothing to do with the PL relegation proposal and more to do with the TV income distribution proposal.

Fitz*

Just reading The Athletic piece on it no and going by that, it sounds like it is closer to a 3 club initiative which is then being backed by the other 3 clubs in the top 6. So I don't understand why certain posters are trying to apportion the 'blame' to one particular club.

On Sunday, the question of who exactly the authored the document remained in question but it has been worked on for up to three years by Joel Glazer, the co-owner of Manchester United, along with John W Henry, Liverpool’s lead investor. The Athletic also understands that Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck has been heavily involved in discussions for quite some time. Liverpool and United formally presented the proposals to their top-six rivals Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City on Thursday, with a view to continuing discussions over the weekend.

The EFL seem to be behind the idea also, and a few of the executives have praised the clubs for at least coming out and trying to think of changes to be made. The PL, or the EFL should be creating plans of their own and showing their own initiative to improve the pyramid and keep clubs in business. The EFL could be the biggest winners from the deal. They currently receive 8% of the TV deal, but this would more than treble to 25%. That's a massive jump in revenue, for not actually doing anything. Most of the clubs in League Two won't see the PL for 30 or 40 years. They changes in the PL won't affect them in any way, bar possible a lucrative away trip in the League Cup 3rd round once every few years. But they will receive extra income through the PL TV deals.

Elsewhere, Football League chairman Parry is spearheading the support on behalf of his 72 clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two. It is understood that the vast majority of League One and Two clubs see the benefit of the proposals both in terms of the short-term bailout of £250 million, in addition to a more equitable distribution of television money in the long-term. The government has been considering a £100 million package to bail out matchday losses for League One, League Two and the National League combined but the EFL believes it needs £250 million to complete this’s season’s fixtures and avoid clubs going bust.

One executive at a League One club explains: “The EFL is in such a bad position, something has gone wrong, it can’t continue. Who is coming up with a solution? Nobody, except for Manchester United and Liverpool. There is disagreement on everything in the EFL and we never get a consensus, whether it is resuming the league after lockdown or doing the play-offs. We never get anywhere. Time is not on our side and if stays this way, clubs will go bust.

“So yes, we are at the mercy of really rich guys, but it is good someone is taking initiative, as everything else on the table is so limited.

Fleetwood Town owner Andy Pilley described it as a “fantastic proposal that will save EFL clubs from oblivion”.

Overall, I think there are some very good plans that should be implemented. But with all proposed plans in walks of life, you ask for everything and then eventually settle for a compromise so that could be in play here too. Maybe the compromise will be every club still has one vote but the number of votes required to change a ruling in the PL will be lowered.The voting system would be changed from a current 70% pass rate to a future 50% pass rate. It's not the biggest jump. If they change that to a 60% pass rate, it only needs another 2 clubs, totally 11 overall from 18. I'm not supporting the proposed voting plan but I can see some of the logic in the numbers behind it. Currently 14 teams are needed to pass a vote and needing 14 teams form 18 is too many. So reducing it to 9 from 18 is the start of a conversation and deliberation. I suppose more details are needed in terms of what the clubs would vote for such as rule changes, ownership etc as different clubs would have different needs and views here.

But at what expense does this come with? Does the FA 'sweetner' of £100 get reduced? No. Will it be the EFL clubs getting a lower % of TV money? Possibly.

Guy:Incognito

Most clubs in the EFL won't be getting to the pl. So it's no real issue to them to vote for whatever the pl wants if they give them more money.

Seems a fairly straight forward vote buying exercise .

ozzy jr

First thing I thought of when I read the headline points was that it reminded me of the Structural Adjustment Policies that the IMF impose on poor countries in exchange for loans or debt relief. These are often following a crisis, and basically say 'if you want the money to prevent even more of a catastrophe, you have to implement these structural adjustments, which give us, the already extremely wealthy, even more power and control over you in the future'.

It's the kind of regulation the rich like, that stacks the rules further in their favour. The American owners of United and Liverpool are like vultures circling, eyeing up a chance to remove some of the risk that should be inherent in competitive sport and to give them more power to tweak things to suit their interests as and when opportunities emerge. For United in particular (especially at this time), it would make it easier for the Glazers to siphon away funds while under-performing on the pitch.

It’s just embarrassingly transparent, using the Covid crisis to dangle a few quid in front of the smaller clubs that they’ll be desperate for to stay in existence.

irelandrover

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Most clubs in the EFL won't be getting to the pl. So it's no real issue to them to vote for whatever the pl wants if they give them more money.

Seems a fairly straight forward vote buying exercise .

Id be very careful on that line of thinking if i was a lower league club. If only the 6 big clubs need to vote on something it gives them a lot of power. They vote to seriously reduce the amount of games available for a TV deal and are now allowed to sell games themselves on their own streaming service.

The value of the TV deal the EFL get a cut of is way down.

Richard Hillman

If its a push to leave the PL for a Super League, I don't think they would be far off getting a league up and running.

You'd take the Big 6 in England. Barcelona have big financial problems and politically being in La Liga opposes what the club is supposed to stand for. A Catalan League would be a bit of a shambles. The same applies with Athletic Bilbao.

PSG you would assume would be all in but may get fan pushback and they are a rowdy bunch.

The Germans probably wouldn't with their fan ownership model but there is the outlier being RB Leipzig.

The Turks may be interested and the likes of Shaktar Donetsk will be all in.

I'm not sure how the Italians would feel. There would be a severe fan pushback from it.

But what's to say it will be European League? The Chinese, Indians, Americans, Brazil, UAE, Saudi, Qatar could all have the basis to either have a team leave their league or brand new club created.

I don't think they will be stuck for numbers, big markets and viewing figures. Players would likely have to walk away from international football though.

cj maxx

A power grab by a cartel ( big 6 ) and the money funds behind them.
In 10 years time you’ll have a 18 team league with no promotion/ relegation aka MLS or nfl . Clubs will stop being clubs and become Franchises with a strict transfer / wage cap

listermint

But I thought capitalism was all about letting the market dictate . Like if new money owners come in , that's the market dictating .

This all sounds very communism from our favourite American owners..

CSF

listermint wrote: »

But I thought capitalism was all about letting the market dictate . Like if new money owners come in , that's the market dictating .

This all sounds very communism from our favourite American owners..

Our understandings of capitalism would appear to be very different...

LuckyLloyd

ozzy jr wrote: »

First thing I thought of when I read the headline points was that it reminded me of the Structural Adjustment Policies that the IMF impose on poor countries in exchange for loans or debt relief. These are often following a crisis, and basically say 'if you want the money to prevent even more of a catastrophe, you have to implement these structural adjustments, which give us, the already extremely wealthy, even more power and control over you in the future'.

It's the kind of regulation the rich like, that stacks the rules further in their favour. The American owners of United and Liverpool are like vultures circling, eyeing up a chance to remove some of the risk that should be inherent in competitive sport and to give them more power to tweak things to suit their interests as and when opportunities emerge. For United in particular (especially at this time), it would make it easier for the Glazers to siphon away funds while under-performing on the pitch.

It’s just embarrassingly transparent, using the Covid crisis to dangle a few quid in front of the smaller clubs that they’ll be desperate for to stay in existence.

I think this is a very fair comparison. It's always been the way things work though.

awec

I would be very interested in knowing what exactly their concern is with 1 club, 1 vote.

LeBash

It won't pass as it is, simple as that. There will probably be a "compromise" sent out soon which is what was actually wanted.

The PL is the biggest league in the world in terms of revenue and a big part of that is its the tightest league in terms of lower end of the table clubs pull off upsets regularly. That happens because the money is spread evenly bar the final placing money.

If they undermine that it will be short term gain financially but long term deterioration of the league and the money in it.

I'd say the smaller PL clubs would make a good run in any top league in Europe.

CSF

awec wrote: »

I would be very interested in knowing what exactly their concern is with 1 club, 1 vote.

I think it’s very apparent. They want to be able to make decisions that benefit themselves without having to worry about everyone agreeing to things that don’t benefit them.

Guy:Incognito

awec wrote: »

I would be very interested in knowing what exactly their concern is with 1 club, 1 vote.

They can't get what they want, when they want is about the measure of it I'd imagine.

HalloweenJack

The pandemic has only accelerated the rush towards a European Super League and splitting off the haves from the have nots. This is quite a cynical proposal as it'll be very hard for lower level clubs to reject.

It'll vastly devalue the EPL. It'll just be a case of keeping the big boys at the top. Considering all the Sky marketing crap about best league in the world, it'll make it very boring and effectively seal off the top teams from the rest.

My interest in top level professional football has been declining over the years becusse of the obsession with money, taking it further and further from the fans. It has plummeted since coronavirus after the obsession with getting football up and running once again. We are in a pandemic where people need to be kept apart but football (and other sports) are some holy grail that needs to continue. I love football, playing it and watching it, but its hard to keep an interest when its connection with fans is being lost and its being turned ever increasingly into another form of mainstream entertainment.

I won't stop watching football but I will think twice about buying merchandise and going to games when it comes to super rich clubs that merely see me as a customer. I don't have any kind of subscription to watch football and have no interest in doing so.

Rayne Wooney

100 million once off “gift” to the FA is hilarious

Mitch Connor

Just look at how long it took them to come to a consensus on project re-start - with teams at the bottom of the table holding out as long as they could to stop it from happening, imo. You can see why - don't relegate anyone. Yay. but that isn't isolated.

You could also argue that what is best for teams that know they are going to be fighting relegation is not best for the rest of the PL or teams in the Championship and below. A team projected to finish last (or be fighting to stay out of the bottom 3) has a lot more to gain from blocking parachute payments being done away with, for example, than Liverpool or City do.

You could also argue why should Fulham have an equal say to Liverpool in the running of the PL? Fulham can help block a vote this season and good chance they are back in the championship next season (with their lack of investment this summer).

At the same time as saying the above, I just can't see how voting power could shift as much as this - if it did happen there would have to be some form of check/balances to stop the big 6 from making a decision that would be actively bad for everyone else.

I do see the merit in the current proposals - but the fear (and lack of trust) is what comes next.

CSF

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Just look at how long it took them to come to a consensus on project re-start - with teams at the bottom of the table holding out as long as they could to stop it from happening, imo. You can see why - don't relegate anyone. Yay. but that isn't isolated.

You could also argue that what is best for teams that know they are going to be fighting relegation is not best for the rest of the PL or teams in the Championship and below. A team projected to finish last (or be fighting to stay out of the bottom 3) has a lot more to gain from blocking parachute payments being done away with, for example, than Liverpool or City do.

You could also argue why should Fulham have an equal say to Liverpool in the running of the PL? Fulham can help block a vote this season and good chance they are back in the championship next season (with their lack of investment this summer).

At the same time as saying the above, I just can't see how voting power could shift as much as this - if it did happen there would have to be some form of check/balances to stop the big 6 from making a decision that would be actively bad for everyone else.

I do see the merit in the current proposals - but the fear (and lack of trust) is what comes next.

What you’re describing is essentially a football version of fascism. These peasants can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves so we’ll make them for you.

Reckon there’ll be slightly less bloodshed here, but it’s no more fair.

osarusan

If and when this came to a vote, who is involved? all clubs in the top 4 divisions? EPL or EFL clubs only?

Morrison J

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I also like the playoff idea. It would be exciting but also help to keep the barrier to the top level that bit higher.

Why would you want this?