Proposed overhaul of the English game

rob316

super_furry wrote: »

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.

The top 6 regardless of finish are United, Liverpool, City, Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea, they are the Top 6 in revenues. It will be nigh on impossible to bridge the gap to them. Everton maybe have an outside chance but with caps on owner investment its up to slow organic growth.

Harry Palmr

The Big Six would be a better term, and yes Everton could do it but would need to be top 4 side for a few years in succession along with the new stadium actually built to make it the er magnificent seven

listermint

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

The likes of Leicester wining the league is what renews interest in it. having a group of 4 winning between them every year is a sure fire way for the end of the premiership. People will simple lose interest, Even winning fans. - It gets boring. This is basic stuff.

Shanotheslayer

listermint wrote: »

The likes of Leicester wining the league is what renews interest in it. having a group of 4 winning between them every year is a sure fire way for the end of the premiership. People will simple lose interest, Even winning fans. - It gets boring. This is basic stuff.

4 winning it is already a huge difference in comparison to other leagues. Nobody will lose interest if there's a choice of 4 big teams with some outsiders having a chance.

rob316

4 teams is better than one. PSG, Bayern and Juventus have dominated their leagues for a decade now. Those 3 leagues are comfortably the least competitive at the top end.

listermint

rob316 wrote: »

4 teams is better than one. PSG, Bayern and Juventus have dominated their leagues for a decade now. Those 3 leagues are comfortably the least competitive at the top end.

Yes and who watches them widely around the globe ?

Agent Coulson

Rupert Murdoch & Alan Sugar changed the face of English football 30 years ago with Murdoch's TV channels and Sugars satellite boxes that cycle of change is coming to an end and a new one is starting it's now just down who are the players that are going to benefit personally from those changes just like Murdoch & Sugar did.

Will it be the Middle East players or the American players.

gimli2112

Well Sam Allerdyce has come out strongly against it which may force me to re-evaluate my position.

jacool

gimli2112 wrote: »

Well Sam Allerdyce has come out strongly against it which may force me to re-evaluate my position.

If they reduce the league to 18 teams it reduces his chances of picking up a gig from 14 teams to 12. I'm not surprised he's against it!

Morrison J

This is worrying. Promise of short term money inevitably going to reel in the EFL clubs who can't see the long term damage.

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1316055073504530434?s=19

Agent Coulson

The bottom 14 club many of them are yoyo clubs that are happy to screw over the the rest of the EFL clubs and have the advantage of parachute payments to give them huge advantages so it's not surprising that EFL clubs have little to no sympathy for those clubs.

DM_7

Parry seems to have the ideal CV to help this along.

From his time developing the Premier League, to his time as CEO of a club and then onto overseeing the EFL.

Fromvert

They're going to use the EFL to put the Premier League and the other PL clubs over a barrel. Don't like the proposal, fine we're leaving and taking the pyramid with us.

You can't blame the EFL clubs for being all over this, most will never get into the PL and the ones in the Championship are usually fighting against teams with parachute payments to get up. This gives them access to money they'd never get and keeps them running. We're talking millions a year for League 1 and 2 teams, money they can only dream of.

Supposedly it'll be 2.3m per year for League Two teams (and more for League One and more again for Championship teams). That kind of money along with them accepting a wage cap could work wonders for the infrastructure of these clubs if used properly.

Fitz*

Has the EFL grown under him? I know it's hard to judge as they are lower leagues.

The PL under his direction definitely grew the game in England with increased attendances, bigger stadiums which became safer and all seaters, and top foreign players coming into the league.

Maybe Rick Parry knows what he is doing.

LuckyLloyd

Morrison J wrote: »

This is worrying. Promise of short term money inevitably going to reel in the EFL clubs who can't see the long term damage.

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1316055073504530434?s=19

Why would they see "long term damage" as a bigger threat than going to the wall? If you're out of business as a club there is no long term to worry about. And for most of these clubs, revenue sharing arrangements in the Premier League and whether it comprises 20 or 18 clubs is a complete irrelevance to them.

This is the time to change the game because it is in the vast majority of club's interests to go for some version of this arrangement.

Mushy

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The bottom 14 club many of them are yoyo clubs that are happy to screw over the the rest of the EFL clubs and have the advantage of parachute payments to give them huge advantages so it's not surprising that EFL clubs have little to no sympathy for those clubs.

Why would they care for others in the efl if it was going to screw themselves over? Also, is there a source that says they want to screw over any club in the efl? Let's not lie here, they all see it for the power grab that it is. The top 6 dont care for them either, let's not pretend that they do either, they seem them as a tool to help garner support

Morrison J

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why would they see "long term damage" as a bigger threat than going to the wall? If you're out of business as a club there is no long term to worry about. And for most of these clubs, revenue sharing arrangements in the Premier League and whether it comprises 20 or 18 clubs is a complete irrelevance to them.

This is the time to change the game because it is in the vast majority of club's interests to go for some version of this arrangement.

Obviously a load of businessmen are happy with something that saves their clubs in the short term. In the long term the money and fans will all fall away because they've got absolutely nothing to aim for. The lower leagues will likely become completely stagnant.

Can't see the FA letting it happen anyway. The money is clearly available, both from the PL without having to gift them power to put the "big 6" above everyone else, and outside sources willing to bid for a stake to save the clubs. Plenty of talk about potential investors in the EFL.

There's options out there. No idea why you're talking like this all had to be some sort of inevitability. It's only happening because of power hungry elite clubs literally chancing their arm. You're falling hook, line and sinker for it though.

There's no chance all this fully goes through anyway because theres no chance the other 14 premier league clubs vote for it. It's Liverpool and Man Utd that are going to come out of it looking really bad.

https://twitter.com/MirrorFootball/status/1316084564557729803?s=19

gimli2112

The tactic is not to get it 100% approved, it's the scare the hell out of everyone and then compromise, trying to look disappointed as you do it.

j8wk2feszrnpao

listermint wrote: »

The likes of Leicester wining the league is what renews interest in it. having a group of 4 winning between them every year is a sure fire way for the end of the premiership. People will simple lose interest, Even winning fans. - It gets boring. This is basic stuff.

5 different teams have won the PL in the last 8 seasons.
In the same time:
3 teams in Spain have won the league
1 team in Germany has won the league (Bayern have 5 doubles in that time)
2 teams in France have won the league (PSG have 5 doubles in that time)
1 team in Italy has won the league (Juve have 4 doubles in that time)

So if it's a fight between 4 teams wining it each time, that's still better than any other league, and way better than most.

Bridge93

The fact that the first four clubs secretly consulted on it were the other members of the Big 6 should make it clear as day what the real motivations behind all of this are. They really dont care anymore about the future of the EFL clubs any more than Brighton, Leeds or Burnley do

listermint

munstermagic11 wrote: »

5 different teams have won the PL in the last 8 seasons.
In the same time:
3 teams in Spain have won the league
1 team in Germany has won the league (Bayern have 5 doubles in that time)
2 teams in France have won the league (PSG have 5 doubles in that time)
1 team in Italy has won the league (Juve have 4 doubles in that time)

So if it's a fight between 4 teams wining it each time, that's still better than any other league, and way better than most.

Annnnd you'd want to change that .. why.

j8wk2feszrnpao

listermint wrote: »

Annnnd you'd want to change that .. why.

Change what? You said 4 teams winning it would spell the end of the PL, but it would keep it above all other major leagues.

Mitch Connor

Morrison J wrote: »

This is worrying. Promise of short term money inevitably going to reel in the EFL clubs who can't see the long term damage.

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1316055073504530434?s=19

Or, they have looked into the deal and understand it and are in favour of it - while likely having some reservations and points that would need negotiating or discussion.

I find it odd that people think they have a handle on this subject and can see all the dangers (which do exist) but that the vast majority of the people running EFL clubs, and whose job it is to keep them running, are morons and oblivious to potential issues with this deal.

Also, most issues people have are over potential impact on the competitiveness of the PL. Most EFL clubs won't give a fiddlers about that.

circadian

They won't give a fiddlers until they're in the league. This is a consolidation of moneyh and power. 6 clubs deciding on Club sales, television rights? Get outta here.

gimli2112

my basic understanding of it is
- its good for the current big 6 (or at least the owners)
- bad for everyone else currently in the PL
- good for the EFL clubs

tbh I thought this would be dead on arrival but they've turned it into a national debate in a couple of days

Mitch Connor

circadian wrote: »

They won't give a fiddlers until they're in the league. This is a consolidation of moneyh and power. 6 clubs deciding on Club sales, television rights? Get outta here.

what is the realistic possibility of (1) A league 2 side making the PL any time soon or (2) competing top end of it.

Also, the reality is getting to the PL would actually be easier as the championship will be fairer and more competitive without parachute payments.

Also, the blanket thought that it would be impossible for a side to break into the top 6 is utter BS.

listermint

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Change what? You said 4 teams winning it would spell the end of the PL, but it would keep it above all other major leagues.

Your talking about putting in changes consolidating the top of the league their finances and the ability for a Leicester to win it to next to nothing.


So yes these changes fix things. I'd use the word rig but people might get ansi

osarusan

gimli2112 wrote: »

my basic understanding of it is
- its good for the current big 6 (or at least the owners)
- bad for everyone else currently in the PL
- good for the EFL clubs

tbh I thought this would be dead on arrival but they've turned it into a national debate in a couple of days

I would limit it to being good for EFL clubs for whom the idea of being an EPL team is such an unlikely fantasy as to render the negatives for smaller EPL teams irrelevant.


I mentioned the examples of Shrewsbury and Lincoln a couple of days ago. They can only dream of the day that their main worry is them having lesser power than the other, bigger, EPL teams.


That's the majority of EFL teams I suppose, but there are clubs in the EFL with the possibility of becoming an established EPL club - Birmingham, Sunderland, Stoke, Middlesbrough, off the top of my head - who would want to consider things more carefully.


But, if it is the case that it's only the EPL clubs that get to vote on this (and why should it be only them), then what the EFL clubs think doesn't matter.

listermint

Mitch Connor wrote: »

what is the realistic possibility of (1) A league 2 side making the PL any time soon or (2) competing top end of it.

Also, the reality is getting to the PL would actually be easier as the championship will be fairer and more competitive without parachute payments.

Also, the blanket thought that it would be impossible for a side to break into the top 6 is utter BS.

Leicesters rise from tier 3 in an era off money Chester and their London siblings is remarkable and a story everyone got on board with.


This ends that. For good. The end.

Mitch Connor

listermint wrote: »

Leicesters rise from tier 3 in an era off money Chester and their London siblings is remarkable and a story everyone got on board with.


This ends that. For good. The end.

No it doesn't. Stating it like fact doesn't make it fact. And, to be frank, just weakens your argument. The fact Leicester did it, proves it is possible.

What stops Everton, or Wolves, or indeed Leicester doing what they are doing now, in the future?

rob316

osarusan wrote: »

I would limit it to being good for EFL clubs for whom the idea of being an EPL team is such an unlikely fantasy as to render the negatives for smaller EPL teams irrelevant.


I mentioned the examples of Shrewsbury and Lincoln a couple of days ago. They can only dream of the day that their main worry is them having lesser power than the other, bigger, EPL teams.


That's the majority of EFL teams I suppose, but there are clubs in the EFL with the possibility of becoming an established EPL club - Birmingham, Sunderland, Stoke, Middlesbrough, off the top of my head - who would want to consider things more carefully.


But, if it is the case that it's only the EPL clubs that get to vote on this (and why should it be only them), then what the EFL clubs think doesn't matter.

Don't understand how it kills their chances of been in the EPL, hardest league to get out of is the championship and the removal of parachute payments makes its far more of a level playing field with the relegated sides. As of right now because of those payments you are getting the carousel of perennial relegation battlers, your likes of Fulham, Norwich, West Brom keep going up and down.

One recalls Liverpools attempts to furlough 200 staff earlier this year, which was only stopped following outcry, and Spurs doing likewise.

Meanwhile at smaller PL clubs like Brighton and Bournemouth, managers and staff took reductions very quickly to assist lower paid workers, while EFL clubs like Birmingham and Leeds saw players take cuts almost immediately.

I guess the whole greed is good mentality wasn't a tagline in an 80s film.

TheCitizen

Didn't Arsenal sack their mascot recently. Go on the Arsenal thread and mention stuff like that and you'd be met with a wall of defence.

gimli2112

gimli2112 wrote: »

The tactic is not to get it 100% approved, it's the scare the hell out of everyone and then compromise, trying to look disappointed as you do it.

I'd say this is spot on.

Skylinehead

TheCitizen wrote: »

Didn't Arsenal sack their mascot recently. Go on the Arsenal thread and mention stuff like that and you'd be met with a wall of defence.

Maybe read the Arsenal thread. You might be surprised.

LuckyLloyd

Morrison J wrote: »

Obviously a load of businessmen are happy with something that saves their clubs in the short term. In the long term the money and fans will all fall away because they've got absolutely nothing to aim for. The lower leagues will likely become completely stagnant.

Can't see the FA letting it happen anyway. The money is clearly available, both from the PL without having to gift them power to put the "big 6" above everyone else, and outside sources willing to bid for a stake to save the clubs. Plenty of talk about potential investors in the EFL.

There's options out there. No idea why you're talking like this all had to be some sort of inevitability. It's only happening because of power hungry elite clubs literally chancing their arm. You're falling hook, line and sinker for it though.

There's no chance all this fully goes through anyway because theres no chance the other 14 premier league clubs vote for it. It's Liverpool and Man Utd that are going to come out of it looking really bad.

There's only one of us falling for something hook, line and sinker here tbh!

Fans will continue to go to the games because they've nothing better to do with themselves on a Saturday. We know this because we've been watching Newcastle fans continue to go to games under Ashley's rolling nightmare. A boycott has never taken hold because fundamentally these people have nothing else going on in a week. They go to the games no matter what like they've always done.

I've been hearing about fans "losing interest" for forever and a day as the ticket prices go up; domestic competitions lose relative importance; success becomes ever more "pay to play". And yet...hasn't happened yet. The fans in England can be taken for granted and the EFL knows this. They also know they need a big bag of money or a lot of them are going to the wall...

Look it, as stated numerous times in the thread the original proposals will be negotiated down to some extent. But a lot of this is happening imo because it has to, fundamentally. There's a narrow slice of clubs that are going to be made out as allowing lower league clubs to go to the wall in defence of their own self interest. Tough place to be. That's why this is a great move from a political perspective.

j8wk2feszrnpao

listermint wrote: »

Your talking about putting in changes consolidating the top of the league their finances and the ability for a Leicester to win it to next to nothing.


So yes these changes fix things. I'd use the word rig but people might get ansi

No I'm not. I'm against the proposal to give weighted voting to the top clubs.

You said it would become the same 4 teams wining the league, which would make it far superior than all other major leagues. So the PL wouldn't suffer.
From 1992-1993 to 1999-2000 there was 3 winners of the PL.
From 2000-2001 to 2009-2010 there was 3 winners of the PL.
From 2010-2011 to 2019-2020 there was 4 winners of the PL.
4 winners going forward would be better/match what we already have seen.

And we have no way of knowing of a Leicester could be done again or not. It already happened in a time when people said it was impossible.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I've been hearing about fans "losing interest" for forever and a day as the ticket prices go up; domestic competitions lose relative importance; success becomes ever more "pay to play". And yet...hasn't happened yet.

Doesn't experience tell us the opposite, that fans can and do lose interest?

Take the League Cup, you referred to it as an annoyance. It wasn't always like that.

I suspect British viewing figures are down since the clashes between Man Utd and Arsenal 20 years ago or even Man Utd and Man City 10 years ago.

Conversely I can remember when Anfield drew less than 25,000 and Chelsea less than 10,000 in the 1990s, so clearly the matchday experience has improved.

But I'd never assume that the numbers cannot go down.

Fitz*

Deleted User wrote: »

Take the League Cup, you referred to it as an annoyance. It wasn't always like that.

I agree with this.
While it was created originally to get more use of the floodlights for clubs that were given grants to buy them, and was a 2 legged affair, the League Cup did hold more value many years ago than it does now. Modern day fans look down on it but it's still a trophy. Liverpool used to love winning it years ago, and indeed one year won it as part of a treble with the league and European Cup. They celebrated a treble that year but try mention winning the League Cup nowadays and it gets called a 'Mickey mouse cup'. Where did that term come from?

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect British viewing figures are down since the clashes between Man Utd and Arsenal 20 years ago or even Man Utd and Man City 10 years ago.

Not to disagree with you, but how much did the Sky subscription cost back then? I was not paying subs back then so I don't know but I think it's fair to assume that it was not a lot of money compared to these days. One sub would do everyone and you could always watch those big Man Utd-Arsenal games. It was also the only way to watch games live so you either paid for Sky or waited for the highlights. Or listened on the radio.

These days, you have to pay for a Sky subscription, BT, Premier Sports, Amazon etc let alone the proposed PPV games. That's a lot. There is also the pub aspect. It's cheaper to buy 2 pints than it is to pay for a day pass of Sky for the game for example. Oddly enough, the very young generation prefer to 'watch along' games alongside Mark Golddbridge or Arsenal Fan TV etc and watch their reactions while they stream the game. Viewing numbers will get lower and lower with each generation and more means of watching games, let alone cheaper.

Deleted User wrote: »

Conversely I can remember when Anfield drew less than 25,000 and Chelsea less than 10,000 in the 1990s, so clearly the matchday experience has improved.

But I'd never assume that the numbers cannot go down.

Isn't one of the biggest accomplishments of Rick Parry's time at the head of the PL at the outset the way that he got everyone's attendances up a massive amount, coupled with bigger stadiums also? So he must have some idea of how to build the game and increase attendances. This also coincided with increased revenues through TV money deals.

I watched an interview on SSN today with one of the EFL chairmen, I think it might have been Colchester, but one of their lower leagues anyways. He was hinting that if the new TV money comes into their club that they might then be able to reduce ticket prices in a bid to increase attendance figures as they reliance of ticket revenue would not be as high.

Fromvert

There's a reason Liverpool and United talked to City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs and EFL and didn't talk to the other 14 teams, they need them more than they need the other 14 teams. The top six likely see the other 14 teams as teams that can be relegated and are therefore replaceable with teams from the EFL.

Get the rest of the top six on board and the EFL and it's now a game of chicken with the other 14 teams. Sign over the power or we just leave you where you are. Oh and as a sweetener we'll allow three of you to have similar voting rights as us and make it touch harder for the 12 of you that are left to be relegated. 

I think we're going to see them try force this through with maybe some small concessions. The only way to stop it is turn some of the big six or the EFL and that will be tough as they are the teams that financially benefit from it.

Morrison J

No holding back from Ian Holloway here. He's spot on too.

https://twitter.com/BBCRMsport/status/1315941683708788738?s=19

Morrison J

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's only one of us falling for something hook, line and sinker here tbh!

Can you expand on this? There's definitely other ways to get funds.

I don't think the Championship is in that bad a shape yet. Clubs such as Norwich, Brentford & Bournemouth have generated £100m in player sales, Derby, Wednesday, Reading & Birmingham £200m from stadium sales etc. These clubs aren't in urgent need for cash, have their sights set on the Premier League and will surely not vote for the motion.

Teams like Bournemouth are turning down big money for the likes of King and Brooks. Brentford still have Benrahma for now. They wouldn't be doing this if they were tight for cash. They'd be selling asap.

There's also stuff like this :

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1316261916256489472?s=19

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Fans will continue to go to the games because they've nothing better to do with themselves on a Saturday. We know this because we've been watching Newcastle fans continue to go to games under Ashley's rolling nightmare. A boycott has never taken hold because fundamentally these people have nothing else going on in a week. They go to the games no matter what like they've always done.

I've been hearing about fans "losing interest" for forever and a day as the ticket prices go up; domestic competitions lose relative importance; success becomes ever more "pay to play". And yet...hasn't happened yet. The fans in England can be taken for granted and the EFL knows this. They also know they need a big bag of money or a lot of them are going to the wall...

Look it, as stated numerous times in the thread the original proposals will be negotiated down to some extent. But a lot of this is happening imo because it has to, fundamentally. There's a narrow slice of clubs that are going to be made out as allowing lower league clubs to go to the wall in defence of their own self interest. Tough place to be. That's why this is a great move from a political perspective.

Newcastle is a strange example. There's still a decent product on the pitch given they're in the premier league so obviously fans are still going to turn up.

It's the EFL clubs that will end up rotting away due to this. It's the hope that keeps fans coming to see a league 1 club. Take away that hope of multiple promotions and the fans will fade away over time. No doubt about it. Tranmere owner pretty much said that exact thing earlier.

Morrison J

Parachute payments are an absolutely essential thing too. How are promoted sides expected to compete knowing if they go down and spend big financially they're absolutely ****ed?

Getting rid of parachute payments just creates a bigger financial gap between established sides and the newly promoted ones who'll be afraid to overspend in their first season up. Without parachute payments you wouldn't see a club like Leeds take the risks they've taken in this window spending 100 million in their first season up. Same as Villa last season and Wolves before.

The record of teams bouncing straight back up to the prem after getting relegated isn't that great either. Only 6 out of 33 relegated clubs have managed it since 08/09. That's approx 18%.

Fitz*

Fitz* wrote: »

Isn't one of the biggest accomplishments of Rick Parry's time at the head of the PL at the outset the way that he got everyone's attendances up a massive amount, coupled with bigger stadiums also? So he must have some idea of how to build the game and increase attendances. This also coincided with increased revenues through TV money deals.

I'd say Lord Justice Taylor, along with the improvements in policing such as CCTV, did more to improve the matchday experience. Albeit that the increased funding meant clubs could carry out the changes required by Taylor. Nothing was the same after the Taylor Report.

brevity

https://twitter.com/premierleague/status/1316402612036669444?s=20

c.p.w.g.w

Morrison J wrote: »

Parachute payments are an absolutely essential thing too. How are promoted sides expected to compete knowing if they go down and spend big financially they're absolutely ****ed?

Getting rid of parachute payments just creates a bigger financial gap between established sides and the newly promoted ones who'll be afraid to overspend in their first season up. Without parachute payments you wouldn't see a club like Leeds take the risks they've taken in this window spending 100 million in their first season up. Same as Villa last season and Wolves before.

The record of teams bouncing straight back up to the prem after getting relegated isn't that great either. Only 6 out of 33 relegated clubs have managed it since 08/09. That's approx 18%.

Including relegation clauses that reduce wages is one step(believe they are legally mandated in France)

Fromvert

Morrison J wrote: »

Parachute payments are an absolutely essential thing too. How are promoted sides expected to compete knowing if they go down and spend big financially they're absolutely ****ed?

Getting rid of parachute payments just creates a bigger financial gap between established sides and the newly promoted ones who'll be afraid to overspend in their first season up. Without parachute payments you wouldn't see a club like Leeds take the risks they've taken in this window spending 100 million in their first season up. Same as Villa last season and Wolves before.

The record of teams bouncing straight back up to the prem after getting relegated isn't that great either. Only 6 out of 33 relegated clubs have managed it since 08/09. That's approx 18%.

But those teams with parachute payments force the rest of the Championship to go over budget if they want to try and compete for players with them. Championship clubs on average pay 107% of their revenue on wages alone, it's not sustainable and something needs to change.

Parry (who obviously knew about this proposal) called them 'evil', would he do that if he didn't have the backing of most of the clubs, I doubt it.

Also when the three teams get relegated, they are not the only teams receiving payments as the three teams the season before and *possibly the three teams before that are still receiving them so there are potentially 9 teams in the league (likely less a few have probably bounced back up). A better percentages would be how many teams come back up before the parachute payments run out. That would show how much of a real advantage they are. *You also only get two years of parachute payments if you go one and done in the PL.

I wonder how teams fair after the payments run out if they havn't bounced back up. Do they continue along as normal or spiral down. Can't find much info from some quick googling.

Harry Palmr

guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/14/premier-league-efl-bailout-project-big-picture

The major conclusion of the get-together, which had been convened at short notice, was that the 20 clubs unanimously agreed to work together on a strategic reform programme for the game and, significantly, not to endorse Project Big Picture. In other words, Liverpool and United had to give their blessing to work as a part of the existing collective and to say that PBP was not something that could be construed as coming from the league or its clubs.

The clubs also agreed to offer the EFL a bailout but on far less generous terms than the £250m being sought. A combined £50m, including £20m in grants, will be offered to League One and Two clubs, with almost two-thirds of that for teams in League One in line with the way solidarity payments are distributed. Championship clubs will be offered access to loans.

“All 20 Premier League clubs today unanimously agreed that Project Big Picture will not be endorsed or pursued by the Premier League, or the FA,” the league said in a statement.

Explaining the lack of guaranteed money for the Championship, the statement added: “League One and League Two clubs rely more heavily on matchday revenue and have fewer resources at their disposal than Championship or Premier League clubs and are therefore more at risk, especially at a time when fans are excluded from attending matches.

“This offer will consist of grants and interest-free loans totalling a further £50m on top of the £27.2m solidarity payments already advanced to League One and League Two this year, making a total of £77.2m. Discussions will also continue with the EFL regarding Championship clubs’ financial needs. This addresses government concerns about lower league clubs’ financial fragility.”

Those behind the Big Picture Project did not see Wednesday’s developments as a defeat. Sources close to John W Henry said that the Liverpool owner felt he had got “pretty much everything we wanted” in agreeing to an urgent review of the structures of the game. “We put forward proposals and they’re now being considered”, the source said. Expectations are that the review would include the EFL and would be completed before the sale of a new round of broadcast rights. The process of putting rights out to tender for the period 2022-2025 had been expected to be before the end of this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/14/david-bernstein-to-call-for-independent-regulation-in-fight-over-football-future

In 2016 Bernstein and two other former FA chairmen, Greg Dyke and David Triesman, with Davies and the former FA chief executive Alex Horne, publicly called for independent regulation, saying their own experience had shown them the FA was incapable of protecting the wider game from the “financial might” of the Premier League.

The proposal now has extra appeal given the disruption caused this week by the emergence of Project Big Picture,

Parachute payments are such a ridiculous concept. It's like saying "we know the Premier League is a financial basket case and to enter it you will do deals that make absolutely no sense, so we'll prop you up for a few years". It rewards bad deals and failure. It again shows how divorced football finances are from sensible business decisions.

Hercule Poirot

Particularly liked this bit