Premier League team reduction

[metalblade]

Reminds me of the Remoaners and Brexit keep pushing for another vote until one eventually goes your way, It worked in Ireland.

 

[Muttley]

The only thing that surprises me is that somehow, they have forgotten to include sodding Villa.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Snowflake]

But you did. That's why I replied to you

Yes I did, but not for the benefit of the Prem but for those in L1and L2.
There are risks at the top end but if funds do cascade down then those supporters of teams with crowds of just a few thousand and who are just as passionate as we are, will still have a team to support.
Short term funding may save most, but a longer term solution is vital.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Yes I did, but not for the benefit of the Prem but for those in L1and L2.
There are risks at the top end but if funds do cascade down then those supporters of teams with crowds of just a few thousand and who are just as passionate as we are, will still have a team to support.
Short term funding may save most, but a longer term solution is vital.

We just fundamentally disagree on the merits of this proposal

 

[Snowflake]

We just fundamentally disagree on the merits of this proposal

Possibly.
I don’t agree with all of it, but the whole structure needs a complete overhaul and this is the first time any detailed proposals have been sensibly made to start a detailed discussion.
I suspect that the whole matter will be debated to death and nothing will happen until half a dozen clubs have gone out of existence.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Possibly.
I don’t agree with all of it, but the whole structure needs a complete overhaul and this is the first time any detailed proposals have been sensibly made to start a detailed discussion.
I suspect that the whole matter will be debated to death and nothing will happen until half a dozen clubs have gone out of existence.

The detail is all window dressing to try and hide a blatant power grab. Just because it has a lot of words doesn't make it anything other than naked greed and protectionism

 

[robbiez666]

Well, if we have to lose two teams it's good of Liverpool and Manu U to volunteer.

Sooner they fuck off to a European league, the better.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Possibly.
I don’t agree with all of it, but the whole structure needs a complete overhaul and this is the first time any detailed proposals have been sensibly made to start a detailed discussion.
I suspect that the whole matter will be debated to death and nothing will happen until half a dozen clubs have gone out of existence.

I can’t think of many overhauls in the past that have benefitted anyone but the biggest clubs.

 

[Pedro Verde]

Seems that Wonky Owl is pretending to be a Man City fan again!

View attachment 94757

I think Wonky Pig is a Blade on the wind up

 

[Pedro Verde]

Possibly.
I don’t agree with all of it, but the whole structure needs a complete overhaul and this is the first time any detailed proposals have been sensibly made to start a detailed discussion.

Can you please tell me what is sensible about this proposal apart from benefitting the top 6 or 7 richest clubs in the PL

 

[Charlieblade]

I hope that Sky, BT and Amazon have prepared silly low bids for the next round of EPL TV rights. Knowing they will leave the door open for NBC and ESPN to take over the EPL.
They will get US owned clubs to change the rules in favour of more breaks for advertising, and change the name to English Soccer. (I just fetched up some sick writing that)

The EFL Championship is a more enjoyable watch for supporters, and it’s less predictable than PL ‘Soccer’. EFL covered by Sky/BT/Amazon as Association Football for the masses.

The Euro Competitions will eventually be called The Soccer Super Bowl or World Series Soccer.

 

[BrisBlade]

I'd love to know how they came up with the three teams for 'special status'. I bet they approached Leicester and they wouldn't have a bar of it - seem to be the only club with principles in terms of position on PPV.

I think the Prince should move quickly to put an urgent vote to the PL to expel Liverpool and Newton Heath for a blatant attempt to corrupt the sport. All those in favour say aye!

 

[Booker4]

What staggers me is that the EFL chief, Rick Parry, has backed it. Ok, he's a Liverpool fan, but it seems the increased revenue part for the EFL is the carrot he wants. But as others have pointed out, the change of power to the big 6 is the main issue. Time for the government to step up here and to insist on a fairer proposal. Hopefully it won't get off the ground.

 

[Booker4]

Perhaps a split. Two codes as Rugby, union and league. This all started when Sky and the 1st division chairmen agreed to the PL model.
Was uncle Rupert in charge? Good business model really, getting the masses to pay for it. Want to see the best footy at the touch of a button?
£££s a month. Piss poor British management jumped at it. As the clip someone has shown on S2, the Epl could make a good living televising all games and via Clubs individual tv channels.
Me and my son miss going to BDTBL and some aways would be good but we aren't able, so being able to ppv them would be ok.
I can see some feet shot off and a phoenix rising with this.
UTMB

Totally agree, and the irony that the PL are now against the proposals! Thing is, it was really the big clubs who back in 1992 started the PL, now they just want more of the share years on, nothing changes.

What worries me is that I can see the drop to 18 teams going through at some point, even if this proposal doesn't. The big 6 play more games in Europe so they of course want less games in the PL, even though they have the resources to field two top quality teams anyway. I've got a better proposal. Why don't we scrap the existing Champions League format and the Europa League which added all these games in the first place, and go back to a knockout tournament like it used to be, That'll save this problem. Of course it'll never happen, but that's the real issue here, not the PL.

Getting rid of the Charity Shield is a farce also, its only ne game for crying out loud, and why not rle out teams going abroad and playing pre=season tournaments instead!? Again, that'll never happen.

 

[Sean Thornton]

What staggers me is that the EFL chief, Rick Parry, has backed it. Ok, he's a Liverpool fan, but it seems the increased revenue part for the EFL is the carrot he wants. But as others have pointed out, the change of power to the big 6 is the main issue. Time for the government to step up here and to insist on a fairer proposal. Hopefully it won't get off the ground.

Parry has no idea how to save the EPL smaller clubs. This bribe will help him out while he sells his soul to the big clubs for the second time.

 

[mcbladeface]

Another little thing hidden in the proposals are the changes to the loan system. Teams can have up to 15 players out on loan at any one time and can have as many as 4 with any one club. In short more of chelsea style young player farming and the EFL becoming feeder clubs in all but name. Horrendous proposals.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

What staggers me is that the EFL chief, Rick Parry, has backed it. Ok, he's a Liverpool fan, but it seems the increased revenue part for the EFL is the carrot he wants. But as others have pointed out, the change of power to the big 6 is the main issue. Time for the government to step up here and to insist on a fairer proposal. Hopefully it won't get off the ground.

There you go - this should help to answer your question.

Rick Parry (born 23 February 1955) is the current chairman of the EFL, the former chief executive of Liverpool, the original CEO of the Premier League

UTB

 

[DI36O]

I'd love to know how they came up with the three teams for 'special status'. I bet they approached Leicester and they wouldn't have a bar of it - seem to be the only club with principles in terms of position on PPV.

I think the Prince should move quickly to put an urgent vote to the PL to expel Liverpool and Newton Heath for a blatant attempt to corrupt the sport. All those in favour say aye!

The logic is that it's the 9 longest serving Premier League teams. If one gets relegated I guess the 10th becomes the 9th and takes their status. Of course when you only need 6 votes to pass new rules then you can guess what Southampton's power will amount to.

Can't just have the 6 longest serving because Everton would have a vote instead of City, so 6 from 9 will do the trick.

 

[HVR]

The USP of the EPL is down to it’s ‘elite’ nature. The very fact that it is so much richer than the EFL makes joining it a prize fighting for, and being relegated from it a complete disaster. That in turn makes every game interesting, exciting and newsworthy (or if you like, it allows the media create the hype required to sell the League globally).
This set-up also extends to the Championship season, and the fight to get into the EPL. The Play-Off final is probably the most watched 2nd tier game in the world - it’s broadcast to 170 countries. The Championship enjoys an inflated limelight due to the teams in it fighting for promotion.
Due to the selling package of the EPL - the whole league - then the relegation fight has a certain interest, as most fans around the globe know the losers will leave the richest league in the world. So the bottom 2 clubs playing each other towards the end of the season can generate interest and excitement.
Who cares about the relegated teams from the French, Spanish and Italian First Divisions? Yet everyone is talking about who will drop from the EPL.
To sustain this, there has to be a big gulf in riches between the EPL and the EFL, and reducing this will actually kill off what makes the EPL so unique. If you got £60m for finishing bottom of the EPL and £40m for finishing 7th in The Championship, who cares if you drop out? Well, if your team did, you would be upset, but as a global interest, not many.
This recommendation pretty much kills off what makes the EPL a global seller, as you would have 6 teams at the top, 6 in the middle and 6 at the bottom who weren’t that bothered about relegation.
I know domestically, there‘s always the top 6 and the also-rans, but in the context of selling every match to a global market (which is where a lot of the money comes from) then this elite status has to be maintained. Otherwise Bournemouth v Norwich instead of a massive 6 pointer to see who can stay in the league it becomes a meaningless match and less attractive to Worldwide broadcasters.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Rochdaleblade]

Totally agree, and the irony that the PL are now against the proposals! Thing is, it was really the big clubs who back in 1992 started the PL, now they just want more of the share years on, nothing changes.

What worries me is that I can see the drop to 18 teams going through at some point, even if this proposal doesn't. The big 6 play more games in Europe so they of course want less games in the PL, even though they have the resources to field two top quality teams anyway. I've got a better proposal. Why don't we scrap the existing Champions League format and the Europa League which added all these games in the first place, and go back to a knockout tournament like it used to be, That'll save this problem. Of course it'll never happen, but that's the real issue here, not the PL.

Getting rid of the Charity Shield is a farce also, its only ne game for crying out loud, and why not rle out teams going abroad and playing pre=season tournaments instead!? Again, that'll never happen.

I think the clue is in the charity bit. Unlike far east tours, the money does not go to the clubs but rather to deserving causes.

 

[Bladeloyal]

Parry couldn't even look at the camera . Scouse Weasel

 

[Snowflake]

The detail is all window dressing to try and hide a blatant power grab. Just because it has a lot of words doesn't make it anything other than naked greed and protectionism

I have now read the whole proposal, listened to Rick Parry and Oliver Dowdell and taken on board all its facets.
There is no doubt that this will benefit the lower league clubs and preserve their existence which I think is essential to so many people and communities.
There is also no doubt in my mind that the top clubs are taking the opportunity to look after their own interests.
There has to be a balance and with discussion and bargaining I hope there will be.
Protecting clubs like Southampton and WHU seems bizarre, but a one vote per club system seems also wrong. Why should the Blades have the same vote in their first year back as clubs who have created the wealth that is being shared. Like any good business it should be a meritocracy with voting following success.
I fully understand those on here who see it all mainly from our angle and object to it in principle, but the benefits to the rest of the game , to women’s football , to grass roots football, to stadia and to communities make it a set of proposals well worth pursuing, but with amendments.
It is unfortunate that it was leaked to the press rather than put forward with all the reasons, but we are we are where we are, so let’s embrace change for the benefit of most if not, sadly, all.

 

[mcbladeface]

The logic is that it's the 9 longest serving Premier League teams. If one gets relegated I guess the 10th becomes the 9th and takes their status. Of course when you only need 6 votes to pass new rules then you can guess what Southampton's power will amount to.

Can't just have the 6 longest serving because Everton would have a vote instead of City, so 6 from 9 will do the trick.

The whole vote setup is laughably transparent. I just imagine the brains behind this sat with a napkin trying to work out the justification for city getting a special vote other than 'cos they're rich and we want them onside'.

So time served in the top flight is the reason but then, oh dear, that doesn't work because then Villa or Newcastle have more time under their belts than city. Okay so what if we reduce the amount of time in the top flight required to get a special vote so City still get it? Nope because then loads of teams also qualify for the special vote, effectively we go through all this to take away the voting powers of 2 clubs and don't make getting a majority to push our self-serving agenda much easier. What if we say it's longest uninterrupted stretch in the top flight to get that vote? That means City get it and also lets us give it to a couple more easily flattered clubs so it at least appears like it's vaguely representative even if the majority thing will mean they may as well not have it. Genius.

Only problem, what then happens if one of those big 6 have a disaster season and get relegated. They lose their vote in the short term but surely even if they were to then get promoted again, the clock on their uninterrupted stint has been reset so their special vote is gone effectively for good.

 

[Snowflake]

Can you please tell me what is sensible about this proposal apart from benefitting the top 6 or 7 richest clubs in the PL

Please read the whole proposal:there are many who will benefit

 

[Booker4]

I think the clue is in the charity bit. Unlike far east tours, the money does not go to the clubs but rather to deserving causes.

Unless I've missed something Rochdale, I know the money goes to charity and I wasn't saying get rid of it?

 

[bypassblade]

So to paraphrase so to speak Liverpool & Man Utd are saying agree to the deal and, we'll give 250m to the EFL to help clubs out. I'm sorry but that is just blackmail this really could be the beginning of the end of the football pyramid as we know it, I know the PL is all about greed but this takes piss.

If this goes through you know what's next no promotion or relegation to PL that would be wank for football.

 

[Snowflake]

What staggers me is that the EFL chief, Rick Parry, has backed it. Ok, he's a Liverpool fan, but it seems the increased revenue part for the EFL is the carrot he wants. But as others have pointed out, the change of power to the big 6 is the main issue. Time for the government to step up here and to insist on a fairer proposal. Hopefully it won't get off the ground.

Having listened to Oliver Dowdell I doubt the Government will be of much use and that is not meant as a political statement as I don’t think any party really wishes to get involved

 

[Carlton Blade]

I have now read the whole proposal, listened to Rick Parry and Oliver Dowdell and taken on board all its facets.
There is no doubt that this will benefit the lower league clubs and preserve their existence which I think is essential to so many people and communities.
There is also no doubt in my mind that the top clubs are taking the opportunity to look after their own interests.
There has to be a balance and with discussion and bargaining I hope there will be.
Protecting clubs like Southampton and WHU seems bizarre, but a one vote per club system seems also wrong. Why should the Blades have the same vote in their first year back as clubs who have created the wealth that is being shared. Like any good business it should be a meritocracy with voting following success.
I fully understand those on here who see it all mainly from our angle and object to it in principle, but the benefits to the rest of the game , to women’s football , to grass roots football, to stadia and to communities make it a set of proposals well worth pursuing, but with amendments.
It is unfortunate that it was leaked to the press rather than put forward with all the reasons, but we are we are where we are, so let’s embrace change for the benefit of most if not, sadly, all.

The EFL cubs will either be semi pro or owned by Premier league clubs within a decade. This is short term cash to give up any semblance of influence over the direction of the game to a bunch of clubs owned by people who have zero interest in the long term sustainability of English football outside of the 6 biggest clubs.

The West Ham/Southampton bollocks is just that, a little bone to throw to a couple of clubs who'll bend over and lift their skirts to be included. They'll be out voted and dumbed accordingly.

Meritocracies are based on performance. This is based on who's owners have the most money