Jump to content

Premier League want to reduce from 20 to 18 teams


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, alexxxxx said:

This idea depresses me so much and all fans should be against this.

I would doubt Derby are one of the efl teams that are in the 90% of clubs who like this idea. 

I wonder if the Premier league will come up with a secondary proposal. 

I'd have thought that they would have done a 2x18 league (prem1, prem2), one-off covid bailout and an ongoing (increased) solidarity payment. 

I reckon Derby would be one of the clubs cheerleading this abomination. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

As are Forest, who seem happy for a cup they've won most times to be become obsolete.

Very sad.

 

 

 

Yep... It is a disgrace. 90% of the chairmen desperate to take the bribe...

where was this “bail out” when Maccelsfield wanted It..? Or Bury..?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

I may have missed it somewhere but don't the proposals mean an extra 2 league 2 teams drop out the bottom. Bet they're thrilled by the prospect.

Yes, although I don't think the EFL themselves will be too bothered. They'll gain Sheffield United and Brighton in exchange for Cheltenham and Stevenage.

From what I can see, the only losers from the current deal are 'the others' in the PL and the two teams which drop to non-league. Maybe the PL team entering the playoffs has an unfair advantage, but that may even out over time with the redistribution of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yes, although I don't think the EFL themselves will be too bothered. They'll gain Sheffield United and Brighton in exchange for Cheltenham and Stevenage.

From what I can see, the only losers from the current deal are 'the others' in the PL and the two teams which drop to non-league. Maybe the PL team entering the playoffs has an unfair advantage, but that may even out over time with the redistribution of money.

Fine if you ignore the fact that in a couple of years the big 6 (or 9) can completely re-arrange the whole setup to suit themselves and no-one would be in a position to stop them.....

And how about if Mel finally finds someone who wants to put some serious investment into us (or for that matter, another club ouside of the cabal)? The big 6 could veto the takeover and we'd be stuck where we are (or worse) forever.

Or the big 6 decide they want to sell TV rights to the US market who demand that matches are scheduled to suit the viewers on the US East Coast so they end up kicking off in the middle of the night?

Or the idea of overseas fixtures re-sufaces (which it almost certainly will with them in charge) and teams have to travel to Asia to play domestic fixtures?

There may only be a few losers in the short-term, but this would have decimated domestic football if it was allowed to happen.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Fine if you ignore the fact that in a couple of years the big 6 (or 9) can completely re-arrange the whole setup to suit themselves and no-one would be in a position to stop them.....

Under the proposals, they can't. They can veto changes but not make the changes.

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

And how about if Mel finally finds someone who wants to put some serious investment into us (or for that matter, another club ouside of the cabal)? The big 6 could veto the takeover and we'd be stuck where we are (or worse) forever.

This is one of two major rules I'd expect to be removed in further discussions.

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Or the big 6 decide they want to sell TV rights to the US market who demand that matches are scheduled to suit the viewers on the US East Coast so they end up kicking off in the middle of the night?

Or the idea of overseas fixtures re-sufaces (which it almost certainly will with them in charge) and teams have to travel to Asia to play domestic fixtures?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an FA/UEFA/FIFA rule which makes this diffcult to happen.

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

There may only be a few losers in the short-term, but this would have decimated domestic football if it was allowed to happen.....

A bit extreme given the rules proposed. I suppose that's the purpose of negotiations. The deal isn't too far off being ideal for 90 of the 92 clubs in the top 4 divisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Under the proposals, they can't. They can veto changes but not make the changes.

This is one of two major rules I'd expect to be removed in further discussions.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an FA/UEFA/FIFA rule which makes this diffcult to happen.

A bit extreme given the rules proposed. I suppose that's the purpose of negotiations. The deal isn't too far off being ideal for 90 of the 92 clubs in the top 4 divisions.

You're not Ghost of Clough - you're Alex Ferguson......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Temporarily thwarted by the other PL clubs I understand.

It'll come back. 

Anyone remember when they were going to add an arbitrary 39th game to be played overseas at the behest of "big clubs wanting to expand their presence in emerging markets by having competitive league matches and "allowing fans from these markets to experience premier league football"

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Under the proposals, they can't. They can veto changes but not make the changes.

This is one of two major rules I'd expect to be removed in further discussions.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an FA/UEFA/FIFA rule which makes this diffcult to happen.

A bit extreme given the rules proposed. I suppose that's the purpose of negotiations. The deal isn't too far off being ideal for 90 of the 92 clubs in the top 4 divisions.

They do whatever they want, they need a majority of 2/3's of the 9...and guess how many that is.....? And what gives them the right to chose who is in the 9 clubs that get to decide everything..?

The ownership rule wont get overturned, it is their fail safe to make sure no one else does a "Man City" or a "Chelsea" and buys their way into "the big 6" the last thing they need is Barnsley being bought by Qatar and flying up the leagues..

The whole idea of them scrapping the Charity Shield and the League cup is so they can play more friendlies, more money, more crazy kick off times, more over sees games...

 

I tell you a couple of clubs that this deal is NOT ideal for.........Bury and Macclesfield.... who were both thrown to the wolves when they could have both been easily saved...easily.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

You're not Ghost of Clough - you're Alex Ferguson......

Let's say the introduction of the "special voting rights" for the 9 longest serving PL clubs is ruled out, and instead, stick to the 'one club, one vote' system currently in place, would that not get your seal of approval?

Edited by Ghost of Clough
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MuespachRam said:

The ownership rule wont get overturned, it is their fail safe to make sure no one else does a "Man City" or a "Chelsea" and buys their way into "the big 6" the last thing they need is Barnsley being bought by Qatar and flying up the leagues..

There wasn't anything in the proposals to stop the someone like Jeff Bezos taking over Cheltenham and spending his fortune to make them the greatest club of all time. The rule was only to veto a takeover of a PL club - a rule I have already said I oppose.

There aren't too many rules I'm opposed to, and a couple others i;m indifferent to. With a couple of tweaks (mainly to do with the special voting rights) it could be a very good deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen a lot of misjudged outrage regarding this proposal, certainly from fans of Championship clubs who I suspect didn't get the entire memo. I must admit on first reading, it seems abominable but then when you dig a little deeper the only real concern was that the future of football was handed to 6 of the 9 longest serving teams in the Premier League. I think from that point, and that point only, you're asking other Premier League teams, who are more at risk from the drop, to forfeit their right to an opinion and potentially their Premier League status, along with some of their finances. They literally get absolutely no benefit from it, hence it was always going to be a non-starter. 

Ultimately, a deal will have to be made. The proposal dangled a significant financial carrot to EFL clubs that would see the majority of clubs in this country benefit and be able to, support themselves much easier going forward - as well as survive through this current crisis. However, they aren't going to give EFL clubs such a significant piece of their wealth for absolutely nothing (nor the kindness in their heart) so this proposal for US - and many other Championship clubs - was just about the best we could potentially hope for. I think that's why the majority of Championship clubs (including us) were fully behind this idea. It would end the disparity between us and relegated clubs as parachute payments would no longer be a thing and we would be looking at an additional £10m a year. It increased the difficulty in getting promoted, although there was still an opportunity for 3 teams to get promoted into a 18-team division. It's not bad. I would also argue that the fewer teams in the Premier League means that the Championship becomes ever-so-slightly more attractive for TV rights as people still like variety. 

It certainly had a lot of benefits for EFL clubs, albeit the clubs with higher aspirations of being a perennial Premier League side would have reservations. Not to mention, what's to stop these 6 clubs down the line  - with voting power - pulling the drawbridge up or bringing in regulations that meant they had easy access to our players, similarly to the EPPP. They would be able to make the rules and everyone else would suffer. The threat of stopping the handouts would almost certainly be an annual occurrence based on one thing or another. 

I guess the question is now, what are the Premier League clubs happy to receive in return for giving up a quarter of their annual turnover. I have a feeling this: 'made in the EFL' tagline is effectively going to see us take 25% of earnings to become a breeding ground for players and potentially B teams. It means that all Premier League clubs can vote, therefore will, whilst desperate EFL clubs will be happy to just see tomorrow and ignore the long-term frustrations that will ultimately come in time.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

It certainly had a lot of benefits for EFL clubs, albeit the clubs with higher aspirations of being a perennial Premier League side would have reservations. Not to mention, what's to stop these 6 clubs down the line  - with voting power - pulling the drawbridge up or bringing in regulations that meant they had easy access to our players, similarly to the EPPP. They would be able to make the rules and everyone else would suffer. The threat of stopping the handouts would almost certainly be an annual occurrence based on one thing or another. 

A very good post apart from this bit.

The '6 clubs', under the proposals, couldn't introduce those things by themselves - they would fall under the 20 clubs rule. That's the EPPP, access to players, implementation of B teams (requires EFL approval too)

The proposals said they get the special power to adopt changes to the following:
     -  election/removal of the CEO or a member of the board
     -  cost control rules
     -  TV rights contracts

They also gave them the power to prevent changes to:
     -  TV rights contracts
     -  distribution of other centralised rights
     -  the nature of a the PL (number of teams, relegation, etc...)
     -  Approval of a new PL owner

As noted above, changes to distribution of money would still require the approval of the majority of PL clubs, not just 6 of the longest serving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

A very good post apart from this bit.

The '6 clubs', under the proposals, couldn't introduce those things by themselves - they would fall under the 20 clubs rule. That's the EPPP, access to players, implementation of B teams (requires EFL approval too)

The proposals said they get the special power to adopt changes to the following:
     -  election/removal of the CEO or a member of the board
     -  cost control rules
     -  TV rights contracts

They also gave them the power to prevent changes to:
     -  TV rights contracts
     -  distribution of other centralised rights
     -  the nature of a the PL (number of teams, relegation, etc...)
     -  Approval of a new PL owner

As noted above, changes to distribution of money would still require the approval of the majority of PL clubs, not just 6 of the longest serving.

and why should 6 of the longest serving teams ever get to decide anything ever ever ever? Spurs havent won anything since God was a boy and the victims have only won as many leagues as Blackburn and Leicester in the last however many years...(and that has a big * next to it and doesn't really count)

if this goes through we will have Manchester United and Liverpool B teams in the league structure within 2 years....and they will kick out existing clubs to make way for them.....is that a good idea??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

A very good post apart from this bit.

The '6 clubs', under the proposals, couldn't introduce those things by themselves - they would fall under the 20 clubs rule. That's the EPPP, access to players, implementation of B teams (requires EFL approval too)

The proposals said they get the special power to adopt changes to the following:
     -  election/removal of the CEO or a member of the board
     -  cost control rules
     -  TV rights contracts

They also gave them the power to prevent changes to:
     -  TV rights contracts
     -  distribution of other centralised rights
     -  the nature of a the PL (number of teams, relegation, etc...)
     -  Approval of a new PL owner

As noted above, changes to distribution of money would still require the approval of the majority of PL clubs, not just 6 of the longest serving.

Nice to see some posts from people who have actually read the proposal.

The EFL clubs are in favour of it for many a good reason. The other PL clubs just want to protect their £100m a year TV money and will not vote for it. This is a shame because most of the other 14 clubs in the Premier League will get relegated at some point in the next decade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.