Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

English football reform being led by Liverpool and Man Utd


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Northern Red said:

I imagine the scrapping of parachute payments would be attractive to a team like us who've never been in the PL and are competing with teams who have.

Under the plan clubs promoted to the prem would have to put money aside in case they get relagated is what I heard, so not only will they still have extra money when they come down the same as parachute payments but they would also have less to spend in the prem to help them compete with established clubs

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Highburnred said:

Under the plan clubs promoted to the prem would have to put money aside in case they get relagated is what I heard, so not only will they still have extra money when they come down the same as parachute payments but they would also have less to spend in the prem to help them compete with established clubs

Exactly, at the very least it should be that ALL Prem clubs have to set some cash aside in case of relegation. We all accept that it is unlikely that one of the bigger clubs will be relegated, but stranger things have happened. Of course whatever the amount is - say £30m - that's a less significant amount for Arsenal than for a newly promoted club, but at least there's some sort of equality going on in that sort of deal.

Also, on the voting - perhaps once negotiated the compromise can be that there's two types of issue, some can be decided by the 'long-term shareholders' but then there's a list of reserved matters where a vote of 14 (or perhaps 12 in an 18-team league) is required to make a change. This is often a compromise in companies that have many shareholders - certain things that are small, or perhaps need a quick decision are decided by a small number of the big shareholders, but other matters require a wider vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sparko said:

I think the plan is there to concentrate the majority of the funds into the top six. 

I suspect that there is some concern from the bigger teams that perceived smaller clubs are starting to catch up due to the money the premier league continues to generate. Wolves and especially Leicester are coming close to consistently breaking in to the top six and other clubs will join them.

United have been poor for an extended amount of time struggling to gain a champions league spot most seasons and the more clubs become competitive the harder it will be. These rule changes will stop that by reducing the ability for premier league clubs to be as competitive once the bigger clubs are able to sell their own games to Sky, BT or their own channel the collective sky sport subscription package will be less attractive. 

It is cleverly packaged but Liverpool and Man Utd are only looking how they can reduce competition to ensure that they can gain the benefit of the champions league money and sell their own services.  

The last big Sky deal changed the financial power within the PL. Yes, the really big clubs are still the wealthiest, but now previously middling clubs can afford and are spending £40/50m on a player so can build a team quite capable of competing with the best - not perhaps over a whole season, but certainly enough to take points off top teams when it matters.

I think your last paragraph could be on the money, as far as the biggest clubs wanting to keep the rest firmly in their place.

Ive said before that the proposals seem to me to be thin edge of the wedge stuff. If they get their way and the big clubs gain control, then there would be nothing preventing a further reduction in the size of the premier league, which in turn would create more space in the calendar for more champions league matches and potentially pave the way for a European Super League.

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Matthew me said:

Why would we want to win promotion to a league that will be totally weighted towards the top six ( even more than now )...

Play 10 less league matches 

Lose a cup competition

I'm sorry to say, of this goes through, it undermines the entire structure of the game.

It's time like this I'm delighted SL is our owner. Can't imagine we'd support this if they're pulling a fast one. Our owner is a shrewd cookie when it comes to running a business. I expect us to stand with others and dismiss this!

Isn't it 4 league games? 18 teams =34 games as opposed to the 20 teams 38 games as of now.

Edited by pillred
Add comment
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

So it will be 250 million to start with, and then 25% of all future TV deals.

Surely that will be a huge amount of money, much more than the 250 million?

9.3 billion was the recent TV deal from 2019 to 2022

But clubs can sell 8 games themselves to international markets which will be just under 25% of the games played and therefore could see the value of the tv deal reduce by 25% itself. Still could be a chunk for us but the special voting rights, what stops the big 6 making changes once it’s passed? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is 2 Americans trying to move to a franchise model with no promotion or relegation. They hate the uncertainty that promotion and relegation brings as much as fans love it.

In their main sports half way through the season half of the teams have nothing to play for except throwing games to finish lower so they get better draft picks.

I say fight this move at all costs

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lrrr said:

But clubs can sell 8 games themselves to international markets which will be just under 25% of the games played and therefore could see the value of the tv deal reduce by 25% itself. Still could be a chunk for us but the special voting rights, what stops the big 6 making changes once it’s passed? 

I am sure that Liverpool will want to sell the rights of their humdinger away at Stoke in place of, say, their games v United, Everton etc ensuring that the lion's share of revenue is included in the "25% to the peasants" pot.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sparko said:

I think the plan is there to concentrate the majority of the funds into the top six. 

I suspect that there is some concern from the bigger teams that perceived smaller clubs are starting to catch up due to the money the premier league continues to generate. Wolves and especially Leicester are coming close to consistently breaking in to the top six and other clubs will join them.

United have been poor for an extended amount of time struggling to gain a champions league spot most seasons and the more clubs become competitive the harder it will be. These rule changes will stop that by reducing the ability for premier league clubs to be as competitive once the bigger clubs are able to sell their own games to Sky, BT or their own channel the collective sky sport subscription package will be less attractive. 

It is cleverly packaged but Liverpool and Man Utd are only looking how they can reduce competition to ensure that they can gain the benefit of the champions league money and sell their own services.  

⬇️⬇️⬇️

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

The last big Sky deal changed the financial power within the PL. Yes, the really big clubs are still the wealthiest, but now previously middling clubs can afford and are spending £40/50m on a player so can build a team quite capable of competing with the best - not perhaps over a whole season, but certainly enough to take points off top teams when it matters.

I think your last paragraph could be on the money, as far as the biggest clubs wanting to keep the rest firmly in their place.

Ive said before that the proposals seem to me to be thin edge of the wedge stuff. If they get their way and the big clubs gain control, then there would be nothing preventing a further reduction in the size of the premier league, which in turn would create more space in the calendar for more champions league matches and potentially pave the way for a European Super League.

 

 

Really good points.

Some years back, the top 4 had it all their own way (Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd and nouveau riche Chelsea).  They were all happy for a while.  Top 4 meant Champions League.  Everton tried to disrupt it, but it was Spurs, closely followed by Man City who upset the dominance.  6 into 4 Champions League places (and the money from it) didn’t go, and we’ve seen 2 or 3 of these clubs suffer (in comparison) without season on season CL football.  Add to that as you say, Leicester and Wolves and I genuinely think the last tv deal has made it uncomfortable at the top.

It does mean there is stroll a gulf to the Championship.

2 hours ago, JonDolman said:

So it will be 250 million to start with, and then 25% of all future TV deals.

Surely that will be a huge amount of money, much more than the 250 million?

9.3 billion was the recent TV deal from 2019 to 2022

I think that is a combination of domestic (£4.5bn roughly) and overseas....it is only the domestic that gets the 25% treatment.  I think!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily the FA have the power to overrule any change in voting requirements and league structure so doesn't look like Top 6 will be getting their way. Take out the special voting rights, ring fence certain fixtures and limit the amount (ie Top 6 teams can choose 2 other fixtures against top 6) that can't go on their personally sold games and make it so both clubs have to use that game (ie Man Utd can't exclusively have their away game vs Liverpool and Liverpool can't exclusively have their away game at Man Utd etc, must both use game at one stadium) and the prospect looks better to a level that could be negotiated.

Top 6 apparently threatened to break away from premier league in an attempt to force it through, if that doesn't show who they think the deal is good for nothing does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to go, let em. A common phrase in football is nobody is bigger than the club, well nobody is bigger than English football as a whole.
Let them go play in a European Super League and price their fans out of away games. 
Arsenal, Spurs and currently United will find themselves currently unable to challenge near the top, maybe some even find themselves near the bottom of that sort of league, something they have not been used to for decades, some not at all. 
 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dredd said:

If they want to go, let em. A common phrase in football is nobody is bigger than the club, well nobody is bigger than English football as a whole.
Let them go play in a European Super League and price their fans out of away games. 
Arsenal, Spurs and currently United will find themselves currently unable to challenge near the top, maybe some even find themselves near the bottom of that sort of league, something they have not been used to for decades, some not at all. 
 

I really believe their fans would be against any move to a European Super League. Certainly their 'real' fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matthew me said:

18 teams, meaning we play 17 X 2 means 34

We have 24, meaning we play 23 X2 means 46

12 games less and cup

I was talking about the premier league they would lose 4 games each, the championship will still be 24 clubs so unless we go up it will make no difference to us. (apart from the cup games obviously).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Would be the worst thing to happen to English football.  Takes away integrity and gives 6 clubs who happen to be the best 6 today, power forever.

Just because it gives EFL teams money doesn’t make it good.  As soon as sporting integrity goes so does the sport. 

With every new SKY TV deal a little more integrity disappears from the top end of the game. 😞

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cake is getting smaller. 

One word.......

Its WAGES that are the problem 

Players will need to tear up their contracts like the Ashton gate 8. Clubs will simply not be able to pay them. Lets face it if the french or spanish teams pay more let them go. Maybe martian football is the future. Lets get back to real local heroes playing local football for five times an average pay packet . With a smattering of foreign players for 6 and stop pretending that the cake will continue to grow. Talk of european super leagues is insane at the moment not that they were a good idea in the first place. The champions league itself only gets exciting in the knockout stages. Maybe its nostalgia but give me the old european cup all day long. European place  for fa cup winner and first division champion and runner up. The league cup could be played between div2 3 and 4. With a wembley final and a play off with 17th in the prem😁. Imagine if forest green won that! A proper league cup with league consequencies...😐

Liverpool and Man u arent even very good this year. Maybe the kids of bristol will be wearing villa and leicester shirts in three years time or cheering for lee johnsons Southampton

Funny old game!

Edited by the frampton balti
Why not?
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This to me is a complete sham and an attempt to take advantage of the desparation of EFL clubs to push through a massive power grab. The Glazers cannot even be trusted to run Man U let alone have any stake in the status of the whole pyramid. 

The Premier League need to get their shit together and put forward a reasonable plan of their own, for me the most sensible option is in effect you bail out the EFL with a mortgage. 250 million to be replayed over 50 years or something like that but with conditions that the EFL get their house in order, with wage caps and stringent rules on financials, but equally the Premier League have to take their share of the blame for the situation in the championship, they have never been willing to put in rules of their own to stop championship clubs that break the rules but get promoted are just allowed to carry on. Bournemouth broke every financial rule there was when they got promoted, but as the Premier League would not work with the EFL the gamble worked and with no disincentive it actively encourages other clubs to do the same. 

Had the EFL and prem worked together and said sorry Bournemouth but you have pissed all over the rules so no promotion for you that would have effectively pushed them and stopped other clubs from gambling if they payoff wasn't there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I think this will eventually go through- I saw something on social media yesterday that said Bristol City have already indicated that they agree with it.

for me it will no longer be the game I grew up to love... the premier league will only ever be won by 6 teams, no more fairytale stories like Leicester winning it a few years back, or the likes of Wimbledon making it all the way to the top tier... pretty much 6 teams winning everything while the rest of us carry on existing but with what kind of dream?

Money talks though so I think they will push this through

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Athletic is reporting today that David Bernstein (former Man City and FA chairman) has drafted alternative proposals, which he was working on since March.

So PBP is only one proposal and hopefully will just be the start of the public conversation about this reset of football.

We all know the game needs to change, let's hope there's some common sense and compassion mixed in with the business focus, and that the game is protected from power grabs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty basic negotiating strategy tbh, include something outlandish that others will object to (Special voting rights) so when you climb down on the issue you appear to be compromising and get what you really want (x games per season to sell themselves)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Seems pretty basic negotiating strategy tbh, include something outlandish that others will object to (Special voting rights) so when you climb down on the issue you appear to be compromising and get what you really want (x games per season to sell themselves)

Could well be right.

Appear to be magnanimous, by donating money to the desperate EFL  from the (current) big pot that belongs to the many, while achieving the end goal of giving the big 6 their own TV rights, that will in turn create an even bigger pot for the few.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit on offer, in my opinion, is basically good, but the “price “ demanded in return would change football forever.

This is clearly the first step to a European ( or even World?) Super League run by billionaire franchise owners who would not give a flying ..... about the FA, UEFA or FIFA, they would effectively own football.

 

My immediate concern is that unless there is immediate help from the PL , many EFL clubs will start to fold very soon. The PL are , I understand discussing Project Big Picture today, and a EFL bailout, if an argument on this means no agreement can be found, then carnage in the EFL will follow. Do you think the American money men will be prepared to see Oldham , Tranmere and Leyton Orient go bust, if that forces agreement ? You bet they are

 

 

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

The benefit on offer, in my opinion, is basically good, but the “price “ demanded in return would change football forever.

This is clearly the first step to a European ( or even World?) Super League run by billionaire franchise owners who would not give a flying ..... about the FA, UEFA or FIFA, they would effectively own football.

 

My immediate concern is that unless there is immediate help from the PL , many EFL clubs will start to fold very soon. The PL are , I understand discussing Project Big Picture today, and a EFL bailout, if an argument on this means no agreement can be found, then carnage in the EFL will follow. Do you think the American money men will be prepared to see Oldham , Tranmere and Leyton Orient go bust, if that forces agreement ? You bet they are

The probably see it as , if half of league 1 &2 clubs go bust then the PL will need to find less money to bail out what remains of the EFL!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downendcity said:

The probably see it as , if half of league 1 &2 clubs go bust then the PL will need to find less money to bail out what remains of the EFL!

I think they are looking to play it as a poker game, the L1 & L2 clubs are just ( in their opinion) minor cards that can be discarded.. As they fall one by one that would put more pressure on the “ non special “ PL clubs to accept the deal.

My concern is , how many clubs fold, whilst this negotiation plays out. The Americans know how to play hard ball

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...