United and Liverpool driving "Project Big Picture" - Football’s biggest shake-up in a generation

Wumminator said:

Money.

Click to expand...

How do they earn more money with less games? I guess they want more tv money near the top then? Not reducing season tickets cost and stuff like that.

Wumminator said:

Absolutely shambolic and should not happen at all.

why are they so intent on killing football?

Click to expand...

Money is the answer to it, but you have to think they have the foresight to look beyond the next five years or so and realize that in the long term this is going nowhere good.

Paul_Scholes18 said:

How do they earn more money with less games? I guess they want more tv money near the top then? Not reducing season tickets cost and stuff like that.

Click to expand...

Theory seems to be it makes more time for money-making pre-season friendlies in Asia, etc.

Terrible idea. All about maintaining the most powerful teams.

Alot of good points here, however... I feel like it's all tarnished when you consider it looks like they are offering up bait money for the EFL etc to make a power grab for the top 6 teams in the league, who can do anything they want with their power then in the future, which is stupid, id say it's a good proposal, however keep the 1 team 1 vote system, they are basically trying to remove democracy and keep the top teams in power whilst giving the lesser teams no say at all, that's wrong.

18 clubs in the PL, fewer games in the domestic calendar, with only two automatic relegations, and the big teams allowed to hoover up 15 players they can then immediately loan out... this is about consolidating power at the very top.

The proposals will make the top 16 better, and probably go a long way to helping English football dominate the Champions League/Europa League. But you'd be making it significantly harder to break into the top 16.

It's the footballing equivalent of the London property market. The rich get richer, whilst the poor have to rent and never be in a position to get onto the ladder. The £100m donation is about keeping them distracted from the bigger picture.

United fans can be pleased. Football fans should be worried.

2cents said:

Theory seems to be it makes more time for money-making pre-season friendlies in Asia, etc.

Click to expand...

That is just terrible then. I guess Glaziers like having more meaningless games for money.
There was some good part about helping keep up the stadiums and sponsor that, but that is it.

Seems like a trojan horse doesn't it. Lots of good suggestions thrown in at a time of weakness to do a power grab.

Hopefully the existing structure ensures the good stuff goes through and the power grab doesn't.

I like it.

The relegation/promotion playoff change is done in order to increase the global appeal and revenue from it.

The main sticking point is the voting change and contrary to most I think it makes sense. Why would a club that is in the PL once in a blue moon have the same vote as the clubs that are a permanent fixture? However I wouldn't reduce the number of voting teams, but instead would make the votes proportional on the number of years the clubs have spent in the PL. So for example United and Pool would get 28 votes, City would get 18 votes, Leeds would get 1 vote and West Ham would get 8 votes.

Why the feck would you need to reduce the number of teams in the Prem and scrap the League Cup? Surely one or the other would be fine.

If it's just to get the edge in European competition and allow space for more pointless preseason tournaments then all the other leagues will have to follow suit and we'll just be left with a greater quantity of shit, pointless football all around Europe.

Momochiru said:

I like it.

The relegation/promotion playoff change is done in order to increase the global appeal and revenue from it.

The main sticking point is the voting change and contrary to most I think it makes sense. Why would a club that is in the PL once in a blue moon have the same vote as the clubs that are a permanent fixture? However I wouldn't reduce the number of voting teams, but instead would make the votes proportional on the number of years the clubs have spent in the PL. So for example United and Pool would get 28 votes, City would get 18 votes, Leeds would get 1 vote and West Ham would get 8 votes.

Click to expand...

This is the sort of post I was looking for in the thread about the 15 pound PPV matches! There's always one like this.

have to hand it to the two clubs, they've covered a lot of bases. EFL will be all over this, they need the money. The big clubs will naturally like the idea of even more power, the smaller clubs will like the FFP idea, there's something for the women's game, there's something for away fans ... there's something for everybody, really.

there's a lot to like in those ideas, but also a lot to dislike ... some of those ideas are dodgy as feck and would be very damaging to the game (especially that one which gives nine of the clubs the majority of the power). Weed out or at least tweek those and it'll be fine.

Flanders Devil said:

How’s does this bit work??

• 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.

Click to expand...

Prem reduced to 18

So basically the team who come 3rd bottom will have to win 2 games to retain their place in the PL, essentially replacing the team who come 6th in the Championship play-offs.

16. play-off
17. Relegated
18. Relegated

1. Promoted
2. Promoted
3. Play off
4. Play off
5. Play off

16th vs 5th, 3rd vs 4th, final.

Cloud7 said:

This is the sort of post I was looking for in the thread about the 15 pound PPV matches! There's always one like this.

Click to expand...

So you think the likes of Leeds who spend 1 year out of twenty in the PL should have the same say on how it's governed as Man United?

Why do I get the feeling that English football is getting conned by the bean counters? This gives an uncomfortable amount of control to the big six. Why should our shitty owners get a say about who buys a football club?

Momochiru said:

So you think the likes of Leeds who spend 1 year out of twenty in the PL should have the same say on how it's governed as Man United?

Click to expand...

Yes I do. If you're a PL club then you should have a significant vote, just as much as any other club. There are twenty teams in the league. They all start the season on even ground. No one team should have more say than the others. Consolidation of power at the top makes things boring.

Paul_Scholes18 said:

How do they earn more money with less games? I guess they want more tv money near the top then? Not reducing season tickets cost and stuff like that.

Click to expand...

It's an opening gambit.

They don't really want an 18 team Premier League. But saying they do gives them more power. It hurts them the least.

Momochiru said:

So you think the likes of Leeds who spend 1 year out of twenty in the PL should have the same say on how it's governed as Man United?

Click to expand...

Should Leicester city have a bigger say than a club like Spurs? They have won it after all.

The entire thing is designed to prevent another City happening. Everything else is dressing around the veto.

I get it - the status quo enables state owned clubs to cheat their way to the top and I can fully understand why clubs like Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Spurs, who have earned their position legitimately, want protections against that.

The problem is that there are no legitimate barriers to state ownership that those same owners can't circumnavigate. They've pissed all over the Premier League, Uefa and Fifa and got their way in the past, so why should legitimate clubs have any faith in some fairytale system preventing them doing so again in the future? A ringfenced veto system is the only way to ensure they are kept out.

It's not necessarily fair to give such power to a few clubs but at the same time, the current system is rigged in favour of those who don't have to abide by the same financial regulation and authorities as the majority.

Perhaps it would be better if the rules were changed to give a vote to clubs who've reached a certain number of seasons in the league (say whatever it is Southampton are on to be included for example), or any club who have been in the premier league for 3 or 5 consecutive years.

Similarly, any club should be able to lose their vote under similar circumstances the other way.

Its not a perfect system and would need lots of ironing, but I can't criticise the legitimate clubs for wanting to protect themselves from the cheats.

duffer said:

My spider senses are tingling at this. All seems too good to be something proposed by the likes of Man United and Liverpool.

Click to expand...

It's the classic suits the big clubs doesn't suit the smaller clubs thing.
Hence big club fans on here loving it.

The downsides, 2 pro clubs get kicked out of the football league
The premier league becomes an even more closed shop down to 18, and why should a team coming 3rd bottom get an out of jail card v a champ team who have done well?
One less champ play off spot.
Taking a vote away from some premier league clubs, so the big clubs can wield even more power.


It's like they've leaked this gub to make us stop moaning about yesterday's pay per view

JulesWinnfield said:

Why should your vote matter as much as someone who earns a lot more than you?

Click to expand...

Should a person on social benefits not have the same vote as a millionaire in the general election?

The Cat said:

No club expecting to finish between mid table and the bottom would vote to reduce the numbers would they?

Click to expand...

Clubs will vote for anything if they're given enough cut of the pie.

Like when little clubs voted for that change that big clubs could basically steal any young talent under a certain age for limited monies.
The big clubs gave them extra money to stop them vetoing it.

No! Stop it. Stop killing football. Sadly some sports have become to big for themself to control it.

Steve Bruce said:

Should a person on social benefits not have the same vote as a millionaire in the general election?

Click to expand...

You're comparing two different things.

Should someone visiting your country for a years work experience have the same voting rights on its long term governance as you who've lived there all your life?

I don't think the number should be arbitrary, and 9 clubs seems silly, but I can also see why it doesn't make sense to give yoyo clubs who are only in the league for a single season, full voting rights on long term strategical decisions.

diarm said:

You're comparing two different things.

Should someone visiting your country for a years work experience have the same voting rights on its long term governance as you who've lived there all your life?

I don't think the number should be arbitrary, and 9 clubs seems silly, but I can also see why it doesn't make sense to give yoyo clubs who are only in the league for a single season, full voting rights on long term strategical decisions.

Click to expand...

Newcastle United have been in the Premier league more seasons than City yet their vote doesn't count.

Using my analogy it's more like someone who is in and out of a job rather than someone foreign coming into the country

When the Premier League are creating competitions like Premier League Development League, and the Premier League International Cup, there is no reason to get rid of the League Cup. They are arguing for more competitive matches for the youth players, and now arguing for the League Cup to be abolished.

What removing the League Cup from the calendar does do is free up some fixtures for an expanded Champions League. Or for the "39th game"

Likewise, going down to an 18 team Premier League has been banded about since the late 90s. I dont really think the Premier League want it, because why would they? But pretending they do gives them more power

Steve Bruce said:

Should a person on social benefits not have the same vote as a millionaire in the general election?

Click to expand...

That is the point I was making.

Europa Super League will be the result of this decision.

Cloud7 said:

Yes I do. If you're a PL club then you should have a significant vote, just as much as any other club. There are twenty teams in the league. They all start the season on even ground. No one team should have more say than the others. Consolidation of power at the top makes things boring.

Click to expand...

This is a very simplistic view, most issues that need voting have long term repercussions and are not just limited to a single season. Clubs who get promoted, spend a year or two in the PL and then disappear forever shouldn't have the same say. The future of the PL is not that much of their concern, since they spend most of their time in the lower levels and this is reflected in their voting.

Steve Bruce said:

Should a person on social benefits not have the same vote as a millionaire in the general election?

Click to expand...

That's not a fair representation of the proposal. Better: should a permanent resident have the same vote as someone who comes there only from time to time and in the last twenty years has spent there only a combined couple of years.

A few good ideas in an overall power grab that I think would have a long-term detrimental impact.

I hope it doesn't happen.

patty123 said:

Wow what perfect timing, given they are two of the clubs that oppose the extra live matches being free for season ticket holders, a move that will see fans pay an extra 15 pounds rather than being put on free view tv.

Click to expand...

It's like they've purposely timed this even worse scheme to take the heat off yesterday's nonsense.

Cloud7 said:

This is the sort of post I was looking for in the thread about the 15 pound PPV matches! There's always one like this.

Click to expand...

Yep, an utterly dreadful post. Probably some sort of super rich Tory landlord who has 15 properties and views hoovering up rent from struggling families as "just business"

JulesWinnfield said:

Not really, if you're in the league you're in the league. Why should clubs be rewarded because increasing stratification of the league has enabled them to consolidate power and never realistically be relegated? The big 6 are already the massive beneficeries of a large reduction in competitiveness of the league...just how far do you want to push things?

Very much a I got mine attitude.

Click to expand...

How? The big 6 (specifically United and Liverpool) bring in far more viewership than anyone to the PL, yet don't benefit anywhere near as much from it.

The current deal guarantees the clubs at the bottom clubs £100m odd each in TV income - when they'd struggle to get a 1/10th of that individually. It's why they can slap stupid price tags on their players, compared to their European counterparts.

There are some elements that I'd support - e.g. abolishing the League Cup. But if it's a take it or leave it for the whole package, then I'm against it.

Regarding the proposed reduction of the Prem to 18 clubs, this will makes it less interesting because it reduces the variety and competition. Originally the Prem had 22 teams, and if we continue further down this reduction path we'll end up with an ever-more boring league.

Skills said:

How? The big 6 (specifically United and Liverpool) bring in far more viewership than anyone to the PL, yet don't benefit anywhere near as much from it.

The current deal guarantees the clubs at the bottom clubs £100m odd each in TV income - when they'd struggle to get a 1/10th of that individually. It's why they can slap stupid price tags on their players, compared to their European counterparts.

Click to expand...

Which has made the league more competitive since top clubs can't just cherry pick the players they wont for pennies

Momochiru said:

That's not a fair representation of the proposal. Better: should a permanent resident have the same vote as someone who comes there only from time to time and in the last twenty years has spent there only a combined couple of years.

Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest lets not act like the PL exists outside of the English football league pyramid. So if a club is in the PL for 20 years and another only 5 years in that time but have been in the championship for 15 years. I see no reason why they shouldn't have the same rights, since the decisions made significantly impact the rest of English football.

The PL is part of English football.

Forgetting whether it's a good idea or bad idea for a moment, doesn't it take 75% of premier league clubs to vote yes in order to make any change? I can't see 15 clubs voting for this.

I suppose the big 6 could threaten a breakaway, or to start a european league, but if I were a Burnley or a Brighton I'd say ok then feck off.

Skills said:

How? The big 6 (specifically United and Liverpool) bring in far more viewership than anyone to the PL, yet don't benefit anywhere near as much from it.

The current deal guarantees the clubs at the bottom clubs £100m odd each in TV income - when they'd struggle to get a 1/10th of that individually. It's why they can slap stupid price tags on their players, compared to their European counterparts.

Click to expand...

The whole reason why our league is an entertaining product and is able to earn that 100 million in TV income per club is bottom those bottom clubs have enough money to get players that can put up some sort of a fight against the big clubs and make our matches worth watching. It's a self perpetuating cycle, that if you take away the money the smaller clubs make and make them easier prey for bigger teams to poach their players, the league becomes weaker on the whole and thus less worthwhile viewing.

Momochiru said:

That's not a fair representation of the proposal. Better: should a permanent resident have the same vote as someone who comes there only from time to time and in the last twenty years has spent there only a combined couple of years.

Click to expand...

But it's not about the amount of years your in the top division though is it? Newcastle & villa have been in the top division (premier league years) more years than city