Proposed overhaul of the English game

Guy:Incognito

Is entry to the pl not invitation only anyway (but every season they invite the top 2 plus the play off winner)? Do they need any input from the epl to change things about the promotion/relegation?

Pauliedragon

osarusan wrote: »

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

I could be wrong but my understanding is it's the premier league clubs who'll decide and they need 14 out of 20 votes to decide on any issue.

LuckyLloyd

Morrison J wrote: »

Why would you want this?

Because I don't want to watch Liverpool play deadbeat teams like Norwich or Fulham twice a year if it can be avoided. We've had one or two teams each of the last few years that are very far off the level required.

Agent Coulson

This is just the opening gambit from the big clubs in what will lead to major changes in English football from the top down.

92 fulltime professional is way to many most of the bottom 42 will be lucky to survive this pandemic and will return to amateur and semi pro as a means to survive.

TV money bubble is bursting right now and they need to find a way to keep the money rolling in.


Just like the move to Sky nearly 30 years I can see this as a semi break away from Sky now and football moving more to streaming in the next round of rights.


They also need to stop fly by night owners coming into the Championship and burning money to try and get into the Premier League and when that doesn't happen they walk and leave clubs in tatters.


There is a lot of good ideas there and I said it just the opening gambit of a back and forth that will go all season and the longer the pandemic lasts the closer this will get to happening.

CSF

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because I don't want to watch Liverpool play deadbeat teams like Norwich or Fulham twice a year if it can be avoided. We've had one or two teams each of the last few years that are very far off the level required.

Teams that are far off the level get relegated. Loads of promoted teams come up and offer something to the league instead.

That’s the whole point in promotion and relegation, to maintain that level. And yet they’re actually looking at potentially less relegation.

osarusan

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I could be wrong but my understanding is it's the premier league clubs who'll decide and they need 14 out of 20 votes to decide on any issue.

So it would the the EPL clubs who would be voting to effectively give away voting rights from then on (apart from the 'Big 6')?

I can understand some clubs like say Shrewsbury or Lincoln, who haven't been near the top flight in decades if ever, saying that they should just take the money as any future barriers to EPL participation, or equal voice in how things are run, are very unlikely to effect them anyway.

But why would EPL clubs outside the Big 6 vote for this?

gimli2112

they only need to convince 8 other clubs to get it through, there must be 8 bribeable people involved
seriously though it would be bad to give too much power to the top sides. I think between the carrot and the stick strategies soemthing's got to give however.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

I'm very much against the abolition of the League Cup and Charity Shield. If you manage or own a club and don't want to have the hassle of competing in these competitions, field a weakened side, play a youth team.

Why should the rest of the teams in your league and the leagues below be denied the chance to compete for silverware just because it incontinences you?

Morrison J

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because I don't want to watch Liverpool play deadbeat teams like Norwich or Fulham twice a year if it can be avoided. We've had one or two teams each of the last few years that are very far off the level required.

Very easy to say that from your perch at the top of the table though. It's extremely tough to get out of the championship as it is. Anyone who does it has earned it and deserves a go in the premier league without any extra barriers.

Villa literally came up from the play offs the season before last and just put 7 goals past Liverpool. You could have had Cardiff keeping Villa in the Championship and got another year of Neil Warnock if that rule was already in place.

The model is fine as it is.

Some decent proposals in this.

18 clubs would mean a winter break. No harm.

Rayne Wooney

Liverpool would have loved playing the likes of Fulham etc 5 years ago as it meant much needed points in the race for europa league.

Things change, and they can change again very easily.

McFly85

Some good proposals here that will never get off the ground due to the insane voting structure.

I kind of agree that any vote for long term changes to the PL should be done by long term members, but I would prefer a system where a team has a vote if they’ve been in the PL for 3 of the last 5 years.

I can’t see the voting structure in the proposal changing though as I would imagine that’s the primary goal for the top 6 clubs.

Bridge93

Well Sky have said the West Ham who are meant to be one of the ‘other 3’ have hit out at the plan

Fitz*

Bridge93 wrote: »

Well Sky have said the West Ham who are meant to be one of the ‘other 3’ have hit out at the plan

And West Ham, very vocally through Karen Brady, were a heavy advocate of 'null & void' solely to safe their own skin and nothing got to do with the pandemic, setting a precedence or the future season of the league. Of course they will put their own interests in front of any plans to change the league and it means they have a greater chance of not being in the money league, of course they will object.

I'm fully aware that clubs putting their own interests first is happening on the other side of the argument, but which one is better for the overall league and football pyramid?

Fitz*

McFly85 wrote: »

Some good proposals here that will never get off the ground due to the insane voting structure.

I kind of agree that any vote for long term changes to the PL should be done by long term members, but I would prefer a system where a team has a vote if they’ve been in the PL for 3 of the last 5 years.

I can’t see the voting structure in the proposal changing though as I would imagine that’s the primary goal for the top 6 clubs.

This would be a good compromise. If you are in the league 3 out of the last 5 seasons, you get a vote in the changes. One vote per club and (let's pick an arbitrary figure of) 70% clubs need to approve. Without doing the math, there's probably what, 14 clubs currently in the PL that are present 3 out of the last 5 seasons? So it would need 10 clubs approval from those 14.

Morrison J

Like the community shield is a game I rarely watch but it's a game that generates money for charity. Why would any fan want it abolished and replaced with a token friendly so whatever yank/arab owner involved can line their pockets further instead? Really weird stance to take.

Every motion proposed is just an effort to make the rich richer and increase their advantages over the chasing pack. Greed will ruin football.

cj maxx

Morrison J wrote: »

Like the community shield is a game I rarely watch but it's a game that generates money for charity. Why would any fan want it abolished and replaced with a token friendly so whatever yank/arab owner involved can line their pockets further instead? Really weird stance to take.

Every motion proposed is just an effort to make the rich richer and increase their advantages over the chasing pack. Greed will ruin football.

Good point. I was happy to do away with the charity / community shield as it’s completely pointless, but as a high profile fundraiser for charity it’s worth keeping . If that’s where the money goes

KaiserGunner

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because I don't want to watch Liverpool play deadbeat teams like Norwich or Fulham twice a year if it can be avoided. We've had one or two teams each of the last few years that are very far off the level required.

Promoted teams such as Blackpool beat Liverpool at Anfield under Roy Hodgson, Crystal Palace famous comeback in a 3-3 at Selhurst Park put the final nail in Liverpool’s title challenge that season, were also promoted the season before. Short memories, “deadbeat” teams have put it up to Liverpool countless times over the premier league era. Football has existed for longer than the last two seasons.

Guy:Incognito

cj maxx wrote: »

Good point. I was happy to do away with the charity / community shield as it’s completely pointless, but as a high profile fundraiser for charity it’s worth keeping . If that’s where the money goes

Even if it wasnt for charity, its still just 1 game. The rest of the teams are off playing friendlies anyway so its not like its even an extra game.

Mitch Connor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Even if it wasnt for charity, its still just 1 game. The rest of the teams are off playing friendlies anyway so its not like its even an extra game.

To me it is a perfect candidate to be played abroad, for extra money. As you say they would be playing preseason games anyway, so just play the community shield in the US or wherever.

noodler

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because I don't want to watch Liverpool play deadbeat teams like Norwich or Fulham twice a year if it can be avoided. We've had one or two teams each of the last few years that are very far off the level required.

I honestly think that's a terrible attitude.

What about when there is 18 teams and one is ****? A 17 team league? Where does it end?

Tbh, what right do we have to feel other teams aren't worthy of competing? What about if I don't like Fulham playing Norwich?

El Gato De Negocios

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because I don't want to watch Liverpool play deadbeat teams like Norwich or Fulham twice a year if it can be avoided. We've had one or two teams each of the last few years that are very far off the level required.

Your own club spent the best part of 30 years more or less making up the numbers and after a two year purple patch you think its fair to essentially dictate which teams are good enough to play against ye.

Breathtaking stuff tbh.

LuckyLloyd

I see I've elicited a lot of salt at pointing out hapless outmatched clubs like Norwich last year should find it much more difficult to access the Premier League - i.e. only when their squad is at a level where it can win a playoff competition against Premier League opposition (if there was some way to eliminate the once off factor, maybe with a home / away two legged format in the final also it would be even more preferable).

These two responses though, are most certainly my favourite:

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Liverpool would have loved playing the likes of Fulham etc 5 years ago as it meant much needed points in the race for europa league.

Things change, and they can change again very easily.

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Your own club spent the best part of 30 years more or less making up the numbers and after a two year purple patch you think its fair to essentially dictate which teams are good enough to play against ye.

Breathtaking stuff tbh.

On this topic it seems the interests of Utd and Liverpool align, according to the clubs themselves. I appreciate the well of frustration that is currently bubbling over at the present state of competitive affairs at the same time - so it may be difficult to see that right now.

~Rebel~

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I see I've elicited a lot of salt at pointing out hapless outmatched clubs like Norwich last year should find it much more difficult to access the Premier League - i.e. only when their squad is at a level where it can win a playoff competition against Premier League opposition (if there was some way to eliminate the once off factor, maybe with a home / away two legged format in the final also it would be even more preferable).

In fairness though, under the proposed rules, Norwich would still have come straight into the Premierleague, regardless of there being 18 or 20 teams, or new promotion regulations. Norwich won the championship that season, but only 3rd 4th and 5th have to go into the playoff against the 16th (of 18) ranked Prem team.

This won't really effect the quality of teams coming up for the most part - the top 2 still come straight up, and the next 3 go into a 4 team playoff so there's still a decent chance of getting 3 promoted teams.... all it really does is get rid of 'the best of the rest', like Villa last season.

LuckyLloyd

~Rebel~ wrote: »

In fairness though, under the proposed rules, Norwich would still have come straight into the Premierleague, regardless of there being 18 or 20 teams, or new promotion regulations. Norwich won the championship that season, but only 3rd 4th and 5th have to go into the playoff against the 16th (of 18) ranked Prem team.

This won't really effect the quality of teams coming up for the most part - the top 2 still come straight up, and the next 3 go into a 4 team playoff so there's still a decent chance of getting 3 promoted teams.... all it really does is get rid of 'the best of the rest', like Villa last season.

Fine, that's fair. But fundamentally 18 will keep the quality higher on average than 20. There will still be anomalies and clubs that are out of their depth the odd season. But it will be less often.

gimli2112

Obviously this benefits the likes of Liverpool and Utd so it's hardly a stretch to see it being championed by their fans.
Personally as a fan of one of them I hope they don't get their way. You can't give the top sides too much power, look at Germany, Italy and Spain.

TheCitizen

Very little mention of Europe in the op paragraph but I imagine that’s what’s behind the thinking here. 4less league games and no involvement in the league cup cos they’re expecting more CL games to come on stream.

The NFL model with no relegation is what the American owners at Liverpool and United probably really want.

rob316

I'm not against much in the proposals except this

"New rules for the distribution of Premier League television income, overseas and domestic, including proposals that base one portion on performance over three years in the league"

That will lock up the top 6 for the foreseeable. The big clubs will be back to bullying the smaller clubs into selling their best players.

Can't say I'm surprised though, the likes of Liverpool will be long wondering why they are getting only a fraction more in TV revenue than 20th place.

rob316

Dumping parachute payments will further improve the competitiveness of the championship too as what we have currently is a system of the same teams going down and coming back up. Fulham and west Bromwich are back this season I'd bet my house on Watford coming back up and/or Norwich.

y0ssar1an22

so some more info is after coming out:

the reason they want to scrap the community shield and league cup is so they can play more friendlies. think selling sponsored friendly tours to the US or wherever.

The 250m is not a gift. Its a loan

Even the 'good' parts of this are beginning to look not so good.

rob316

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

so some more info is after coming out:

the reason they want to scrap the community shield and league cup is so they can play more friendlies. think selling sponsored friendly tours to the US or wherever.

The 250m is not a gift. Its a loan

Even the 'good' parts of this are beginning to look not so good.

No the premier League are taking out a loan for 250m. They are giving 25% of future TV revenue, the 250m up front is included in this

listermint

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Fine, that's fair. But fundamentally 18 will keep the quality higher on average than 20. There will still be anomalies and clubs that are out of their depth the odd season. But it will be less often.

The smugness of your responses are hilarious. If klopp wasnt around I'd say you would be as gleeful about pulling the rug out from under clubs.

It's attitudes like yours that are actually ruining the game. The game isn't meant to be about all the money but it is that way now. The game isn't meant to be about playing against only teams you want to play against but it appears that would suit you (now).


The sanitising of what's meant to be a joy and entertainment and drama to watch will push people away in their droves.


Clap clap.

atilladehun

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Don't worry, there's definitely a catch. 😳

rob316

I just can't understand how they think they can get some of the other 14 premier league clubs to agree to it, there is nothing in it for them, just a higher chance of relegation. What leverage do they have that they think they can have any hope in passing it.

Giving 500m a year to the EFL and scrapping parachute payments is hard to argue against though.

They should of went further though and proposed salary caps.

Moving to 18 clubs would be a great move. Give the players a winter break every season. Can only be good for the league.

El Gato De Negocios

6 wrote: »

Moving to 18 clubs would be a great move. Give the players a winter break every season. Can only be good for the league.

Is the thought behind the move to 18 not to facilitate additional European games so the clubs involved in Europe will still have the same number of games?

Re-jigging the league cup would be a good idea rather than scrapping it altogether.

Have it that any team that has qualified for Europe the previous season are automatically excluded from the following seasons competition with the winner getting an EL qualifier spot.

It would mean the "smaller clubs" have a real shot at silverware and European football and the "bigger" clubs that are in Europe already have a less congested fixture list.

rob316

I long thought excluding the european sides from the LC was a good idea. It will add a bit extra to the FA cup been the only domestic cup competition too.

irelandrover

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Is the thought behind the move to 18 not to facilitate additional European games so the clubs involved in Europe will still have the same number of games?

That's what i imagine which just increases the money imbalance of the league. Less league games means less money in the TV deal. The clubs in Europe get extra money from European games. So you reduce the income of the poorer clubs while increasing it of the richer clubs.

Mitch Connor

irelandrover wrote: »

Less league games means less money in the TV deal.

Possible. But not a fact. The new TV deal could end up being the same or higher, which would mean more cash among less teams. Though I suspect the idea is that the the money given to the EFL would mainly be coming from the money not given to 19th and 20th anymore.

El Gato De Negocios

irelandrover wrote: »

That's what i imagine which just increases the money imbalance of the league. Less league games means less money in the TV deal. The clubs in Europe get extra money from European games. So you reduce the income of the poorer clubs while increasing it of the richer clubs.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thats the crux of it for me anyway.

ozzy jr

gimli2112 wrote: »

Obviously this benefits the likes of Liverpool and Utd so it's hardly a stretch to see it being championed by their fans.
Personally as a fan of one of them I hope they don't get their way. You can't give the top sides too much power, look at Germany, Italy and Spain.

Any United fan that thinks this will benefit the club is deluded. It will benefit the owners only.

irelandrover

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Possible. But not a fact. The new TV deal could end up being the same or higher, which would mean more cash among less teams. Though I suspect the idea is that the the money given to the EFL would mainly be coming from the money not given to 19th and 20th anymore.

Even if the TV deal is worth more, the teams at the top receive more than the teams at the bottom. They also have the extra european games to bring in money so the imbalance in finances is bigger between the richer and poorer teams.

Skylinehead

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I see I've elicited a lot of salt at pointing out hapless outmatched clubs like Norwich last year should find it much more difficult to access the Premier League - i.e. only when their squad is at a level where it can win a playoff competition against Premier League opposition (if there was some way to eliminate the once off factor, maybe with a home / away two legged format in the final also it would be even more preferable).

These two responses though, are most certainly my favourite:


On this topic it seems the interests of Utd and Liverpool align, according to the clubs themselves. I appreciate the well of frustration that is currently bubbling over at the present state of competitive affairs at the same time - so it may be difficult to see that right now.

I think being smug and patronising about this isn't the way to argue Lloyd. Especially deliberately doing so.

rob316

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Possible. But not a fact. The new TV deal could end up being the same or higher, which would mean more cash among less teams. Though I suspect the idea is that the the money given to the EFL would mainly be coming from the money not given to 19th and 20th anymore.

The bulk of the money been given to the EFL is from the abolishing of parachute payments. That accounts for about £300m a season, 2 less teams then in the league is about £100m each.

y0ssar1an22

rob316 wrote: »

No the premier League are taking out a loan for 250m. They are giving 25% of future TV revenue, the 250m up front is included in this

i suppose the devil is in the detail.

FA take out a loan to give to the EFL. This loan is being repaid by diverting 25% of future TV revenue.

So will all clubs future TV revenue reduce by 25% to repay the loan?,
or will newly promoted clubs get a smaller slice as it is their share of the TV revenue that will be used to repay the loan?.

Cant imagine its the former, as the established clubs wont give up 25% of their TV revenue.

rob316

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i suppose the devil is in the detail.

FA take out a loan to give to the EFL. This loan is being repaid by diverting 25% of future TV revenue.

So will all clubs future TV revenue reduce by 25% to repay the loan?,
or will newly promoted clubs get a smaller slice as it is their share of the TV revenue that will be used to repay the loan?.

Cant imagine its the former, as the established clubs wont give up 25% of their TV revenue.

There not giving up 25% revenue, 18 teams gives bigger share and the parachute payments are gone.

gimli2112

ozzy jr wrote: »

Any United fan that thinks this will benefit the club is deluded. It will benefit the owners only.

I do get that. At the end of the day we're owned by american business too, fortunately they seem to think onfield success is a good way of making money. Liverpool have been lucky too getting the right coach and right players at the right time.

El Gato De Negocios

gimli2112 wrote: »

I do get that. At the end of the day we're owned by american business too, fortunately they seem to think onfield success is a good way of making money. Liverpool have been lucky too getting the right coach and right players at the right time.

And the owners clearly want to exploit their current position of power to lessen the chances of other teams competing, aided and abetted by the Glazers who are just as bad, happy to bleed the club dry and making the battle for top 4 easier will keep their snouts in the trough.

super_furry

Wonder how keen the clubs involved would be to continue in the 'Top Six' was fluid. Let them go ahead with everything they want there but the Top Six and the rights that come with such are based on their finish in the last season.

The Top Six are always changing and not too long ago it was the 'Big Four'. Take it back further and Liverpool aren't in there at all.

LuckyLloyd

Skylinehead wrote: »

I think being smug and patronising about this isn't the way to argue Lloyd. Especially deliberately doing so.

Look, I'm not selling anything. This was always going to be a toxic conversation from the get go. Advocating for 'fairness' and 'all clubs' and lamenting how football is 'all about the money' and has 'lost touch with the fans' is going to be popular and kick off a positive feedback loop.

This is realpolitik in action. The elite clubs want more control over revenue; less domestic commitment; more European games; the drawbridge drawn up a touch and more ultimate control. In return they can provide a big bag of money that is much needed as you go down the pyramid where season tickets aren't being sold; sponsorship arrangements are being cancelled and there is no TV revenue to tie it all together.

None of this is fair. It is opportunist. It is elitist. It is also an internationalist / globalist move driven by foreign owners looking outwards from the English game at a time where Britain is very nationalistic and inward looking in its societal conversation. So it's going to be unpopular.

Here's the thing though: I don't give a **** about lower league English clubs or their fans. They need a big bag of money and trading away access and games with the elite is the price they have to pay. The European Cup is an infinitely more attractive completion than the Premier League, and the League Cup and Community Shield are an annoyance. I'll just say those things because they are what they are and I'm not looking to win hearts and minds here. Football has long been about money and TV and playing in the European club competitions. The ship has long since sailed.