Proposed changes to the Premier league

Status
Not open for further replies.
No coincidence both main protagonists in the drama are American owned. American sports operate closed leagues, there is no effective promotion or relegation and no threat of a sudden cataclysmic drop in revenue. Fenway have expressed frustration in the past at the way the prem operates with equal shares and doesn't fully incorporate it's rewards according to who is the biggest audience puller globally.

Under these proposals the top six will be able to sell up to eight games a season abroad, benefit from pay per view matches, have room for an expanded European super League scenario and organise lucrative friendlies, less games with 18 teams works for them as much as it harms others. Liverpool atm can't realistically be relegated anyway tbf but under this new Americanised and closed scenario of six (or nine) teams they'll have zero chance of ever falling to seventh (or tenth).
 
.... a quote from the article says

'(what) is not yet clear is how prepared the other four members of the so-called big six - Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City - would be to back the plan. There are also questions over Everton’s intentions - the club has ambitions of reaching the Champions League and would qualify for “special voting rights” under PBP owing to its longevity in the top flight'


I mean, maybe it’s just the Kenwright cynic in me, but what planet would our club be on, thinking we’d be invited as a Top 7 side?

There is no suggestion that we’d be invited that way (nor would I particularly to be, fwiw). I know Moshiri and Usmanov are saving this club, but I’m praying that we’re not behind this.
 
EFL was already getting a bail out from Premier league (admittedly it's taking some time) , it's hilarious that Parry is dressing this up as Liverpool and United saving the Pyramid and English football in general.

Man City and Chelsea aside, this will get voted against. It disgusts me every time I read this thread because of the greed and snide involved in attempting to power grab while clubs are on their knees, as if they care about anything but themselves.

Spurs will 100% vote for this, and I reckon Arsenal will too.

We have to make sure we're part of the the teams that don't.

It's got good bits, but those are things that should be happening anyway, not given on top as an added incentive to get the EFL on side.
 
I mean, maybe it’s just the Kenwright cynic in me, but what planet would our club be on, thinking we’d be invited as a Top 7 side?

There is no suggestion that we’d be invited that way (nor would I particularly to be, fwiw). I know Moshiri and Usmanov are saving this club, but I’m praying that we’re not behind this.

While not in support in any way of these, the proposals are clear and we would indeed hold special shareholder voting rights under them, it's not a question as we are proposed to be one of the teams with shareholder rights.
 

They just want less games in the league to fit more Champions League games in. The Champions league will be a closed shop with the same teams in it every season regardless of where they finish in their respective league. Champions league is where the money is, and these clubs want it to take primacy over domestic leagues.
 
They just want less games in the league to fit more Champions League games in. The Champions league will be a closed shop with the same teams in it every season regardless of where they finish in their respective league. Champions league is where the money is, and these clubs want it to take primacy over domestic leagues.

This. And this is the real reason behind FFP. All the baloney about "fair play"
Is in fact to stop anybody pushing out the clubs who want that guarenteed income. What do you think the whole bayern snitching on man city was all about.
Oh you've got someone willing to buy you good players and threaten our little group?
Well here's FFP. We dont want you coming in and taking our cash.
 
They just want less games in the league to fit more Champions League games in. The Champions league will be a closed shop with the same teams in it every season regardless of where they finish in their respective league. Champions league is where the money is, and these clubs want it to take primacy over domestic leagues.

Can see this being the start of a top six champions league qualification at the very least, leaning towards the overall aim of a European super league. Parry is Blatter, strange that Liverpool, a "Socialist club", by their own say so of course, are all for this deal, in fact one of the main instigators. Be interesting to hear what the spirit of Shankly members think of this.
 
Spurs will 100% vote for this, and I reckon Arsenal will too.

We have to make sure we're part of the the teams that don't.

It's got good bits, but those are things that should be happening anyway, not given on top as an added incentive to get the EFL on side.

We have a history sadly of this. We jumped into bed with greg dyke in 1990 as one of the "big 5" and agreed a proposed breakaway.
Never sat well with me.
 
It's not paywalled, but:

Manchester United and Liverpool are the driving force behind the biggest changes to English football in a generation and an extraordinary overhaul of the Premier League, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The two clubs have worked together on a radical set of proposals – called “Project Big Picture” - that will reshape the finances of the game. The Premier League, the most lucrative sports league in the world, would see a reduction to 18 teams, and controlling power in the hands of the biggest clubs.

In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League’s inception in 1992 there will be £250 million rescue package to the Football League to see them through the Covid crisis.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal the details of the working document “Revitalisation” authored by Liverpool’s American ownership Fenway Sports Group with support from United. It anticipates the backing of the other members of the so-called big six, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur.

In a remarkable set of proposals, which will send shockwaves through the game, 25 per cent of the Premier League’s annual revenue will go to the EFL clubs with £250 million paid up front to see them through the current crisis. There would also be a gift of £100 million to sustain the Football Association.

However, there would be an abolition of the one-club, one-vote principle that has sustained the Premier League since its inception as well as the abolition of the threshold of 14 votes to pass any decision or regulation change.

Under the new proposals, the League Cup and the Community Shield would be abolished. There have been additional discussions that the League Cup would survive but without the participation of the clubs in Europe.
There would be two automatic promotion places for Championship clubs, but the third, fourth and fifth placed clubs would be in a play-off tournament with the 16th placed Premier League club.

The nine clubs who have been in the Premier League for the longest - which includes the big six - would dictate its running in every aspect and would be free to play more games in the expanded Champions League that is anticipated from the 2024-2025 season onwards.

As well as the Premier League dropping from 20 clubs to 18, there would be 24 in each of the Championship, League One and League Two making a total of 90.
The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry who has held talks with Liverpool’s principal owner, the American investor John W Henry, and shareholder and director Mike Gordon. In addition, Parry has spoken to the Glazer family, who own United.

The talks began in 2017 but have been accelerated since the coronavirus pandemic has thrust football into the grip of crisis with no fans in stadiums until March at the earliest. Liverpool and United are prepared for a fierce debate over their proposals but they want them implemented as soon as possible.

The Revitalisation document calls for immediate action to cut dramatically what it calls the “revenue chasm” in earnings from television contracts between the Premier League and the EFL. In order to discourage Championship clubs from gambling recklessly on promotion, the parachute payments system would be abolished in favour of the 25 per cent share of Premier League revenue being shared more equitably among EFL clubs.

Under proposals for the new model of distribution of television revenue in the Premier League, Fenway, the driving force behind the document, insist there would be no greater share for the top six. Their stated aim is to eliminate the huge gap in earnings between Premier League and EFL clubs while in return having a greater control of the decisions made by the Premier League.

The document says: “A reset of the economics and governance of the English football pyramid is long overdue”.

The proposals also rewrite the Premier League’s 20-club democracy in favour of placing huge power in the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division. As things stand that is the big six, as well as Everton, Southampton and West Ham. Those nine clubs afforded “long-term shareholder status” would have unprecedented power, with the votes of just six of them required to make sweeping changes. These clubs would even be able to veto a new owner taking over a rival club.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Parry said that he had the support of many of his 72 members, many currently facing financial ruin, to go ahead with the plan. He said: “What do we do? Leave it exactly as it is and allow the smaller clubs to wither? Or do we do something about it? And you can’t do something about it without something changing. And the view of our clubs is if the [big] six get some benefits but the 72 also do, we are up for it.”

He accepted there would be opposition from the Premier League clubs outside the big six who would see it as detrimental to their financial prospects with less money and two fewer places in the top flight.

“It is definitely going to be challenging and it is an enormous change so that won’t be without some pain,” Parry said: “Do I genuinely think it’s for the greater good of the game as a whole? Absolutely. And if the [big] six are deriving some benefit then why shouldn’t they. Why wouldn’t they put their names to this otherwise?”

The proposals include:
  • £250 million immediately to the EFL to compensate its clubs for lost matchday revenue, deducted from future television revenue earnings and financed by a loan taken out by the Premier League
  • Special status for the nine longest serving clubs – and the vote of only six of those “long-term shareholders” required to make major changes, including amending rules and regulations, agreeing contracts, removal of the chief executive, and a wide-ranging veto including on club ownership
  • Premier League to go to 18 clubs from 20
  • £100 million one-off gift to the FA to cover its coronavirus losses, the non-league game, the women’s game, the grassroots
  • 8.5 per cent of annual net Premier League revenue to go on operating costs and “good causes” including the FA
  • From the remainder, 25 per cent of all combined Premier League and Football League revenues to go to the EFL clubs
  • Six per cent of Premier League gross revenues to pay for stadium improvements across the top four divisions, calculated at £100 per seat
  • 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
  • The abolition of the League Cup and the Community Shield
  • 24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two reducing the professional game overall from 92 clubs to 90
  • A women's professional league independent of the Premier League or the FA
  • Two sides automatically relegated from the Premier League every season and the top two Championship teams promoted. The 16th place Premier League club in a play-off tournament with the Championship’s third, fourth and fifth placed teams.
  • Financial fair play regulations in line with Uefa, and full access for Premier League executive to club accounts
  • A fan charter including capping of away tickets at £20, away travel subsidised, a focus on a return to safe standing, a minimum away allocation of eight per cent capacity
  • Later Premier League start in August to give greater scope for pre-season friendlies, and requirement for all clubs to compete once every five years in a summer Premier League tournament
  • Huge changes to loan system allowing clubs to have 15 players out on loan domestically at any one time and up to four at a single club in England


For me out of the overall proposals, there are two sticking points;

  • The abolition of the League Cup - If clubs in Europe dont participate in the league cup, I think that's fine, to get rid of it completely, I think is a big mistake, it can realistically give certain teams silverware to win and the final has always been more for the fans than the FA cup final. The finalists for the league cup get the majority of the tickets for the game, whereas the FA cup final tickets are split between all of the teams in the FA.

  • there would be an abolition of the one-club, one-vote principle that has sustained the Premier League since its inception as well as the abolition of the threshold of 14 votes to pass any decision or regulation change. The idea that some clubs get more of a vote than others is just wrong, it gives the top teams the opportunity to alter the plans further should they deem fit and the other teams would have no say in it. That to me cannot be passed.

  • There has been discussions from Uefa about changing the champions league from 24/25 season. It hasn't been announced how that would work, but one option is to increase the number of games in the group stage by 4 games for each team. So it makes sense to reduce the Premier league, by 2 teams and therefore 4 games, to accommodate this. At the moment Champions league qualification is decided on where you finish in the league, but some clubs want to change this, so that its by a teams performance and history in the competition and more closed off. If everyone in the Premier league had an equal vote, this would never be passed, but if the voting changes so that the top 6 just need to agree it, it probably would be passed, because it protects their earnings.
 

What evidence, I can find nothing to support your arguement?

Well the evidence you showed, in terms of viewership really showed quite close projections in terms of viewership. So close, that if different teams were top, the viewership would be different.

In essence the PL drives the viewers, not the specific teams.

When you take those top teams out of the PL, the viewships falls dramatically too. The independent and key variable if the PL, not the team
 
This isn't getting approved. The whole football world has condemned this bs

Simon Jordan said it himself that this is pure fantasy. The premier league will reject it and as for the club's it needs 14 votes..

10 clubs are undicided/not commented.
2 generated the proposals.
8 totally against it

So in order to get it through even if those 10 clubs were in favour...they need to persuade 2 of the other 8 to agree. Which won't happen cos they would basically be giving up their premier league status
 
Well the evidence you showed, in terms of viewership really showed quite close projections in terms of viewership. So close, that if different teams were top, the viewership would be different.

In essence the PL drives the viewers, not the specific teams.

When you take those top teams out of the PL, the viewships falls dramatically too. The independent and key variable if the PL, not the team

Yep.

Spurs and City weren't a draw until they got into the champions league for example.

Top 2 turned into a top 3, then a top 4 now it's a top 6. A big reason is champions league reach and a few years at the top end of the table.

Leicester or even we do the same for 3 years...the structure changes.

United spend 5 years midtable they become less of a draw for example
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top