What's new

"Man Utd and Liverpool driving 'Project Big Picture' - football’s biggest shake-up in a generation"

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
My understanding is that the 9 teams who have the longest continuous place in the PL -- so half of the 18 team league if one of the other proposals is adopted -- have special voting rights, and that 6 of those 9 are necessary to make major changes to the league. Currently, the 9 teams with the longest ongoing streak in the PL are the modern "top 6" (Spurs, ManU, MC, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal) as well as Everton, West Ham, and Southampton. So the proposals do not explicitly give the top 6 special status, its just that by already being in the top 6, the rules will make it easier for them to stay there. Still, I don't see anything saying that any of the 9 cannot be relegated.

Here is the language quoted on page 1 of the thread
  • 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

They were saying that if west ham were relegated they'd be replaced by palace (i believe, soton and leicester after that). Just wondering if utd did would they be replaced. I know it wont happen, just a thought.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
You're talking about the current proposal. They can come up with their own proposal and structure it how they want.

Yes but the money has to come from somewhere. As marty said they don't want it coming out of their own pocket.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
The money from the rescue package comes partly from scrapping parachute payments and partly by giving the bottom teams in the prem less money (£40m for bottom club compared to over £100m for norwich last season). The clubs at the bottom would be fucked.
It's incredibly short-sighted by the EFL and the principle driver is Rick Parry, but not in the way he's been portrayed - as the enemy of the Premier League, doing all he can to help his charges in the EFL. In point of fact, he's the enemy of the Premier League apart from the Big Six. And he's not working for his charges in the EFL, he's working for the very same Big Six.

How can that be after all he's been saying?

Well, we start by assuming that none of non-Big Six are safe from relegation - not a unreasonable thing to assume. This has been demonstrated over the nearly-30 years of the Premier League. The PL only contains six actual ever-presents - Us, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool and Everton.

Given that, and being very generous, it can be argued that only seven clubs are safe from relegation - The Big Six and Everton, if you consider Everton's history of never having been relegated; let's call them the Safe Seven. The others, let's call them the Lower 13, can all realistically be relegated and who constituent clubs change form year to year. Every single one of the current Lower 13 has been relegated from the Premier League at some point - a number of them on more than one occasion.

What Rick 'I'm an unutterable ****' Parry is doing is classic divide-and-rule tactics. He's setting the EFL against the Premier League by painting all the clubs in the Premier League as part of an elite actively working against the interests of the clubs in the EFL. But the reality is that the Lower 13 have more in common with their EFL counterparts than with the Safe Seven.

Parry is really only setting the EFL against the Lower 13, not the PL as a whole or the Safe Seven, because the authors of the Big Fuckture need "inside men", within the PL structure. The only way to exert any pressure is to basically paint the Lower 13 as the pantomime villains, hoping that by doing so they'll crack. The only thing that seems to have outstripped the sliminess of the idea is the cack-handedness, seeing as the Lower 13 have pretty clearly seen beyond the pantomime and can see that any club outside of the Big Six will be signing away their power.

Out of the three principle arseholes involved, Parry is the worst. Henry and the Glazers have long been known as desperate to squeeze more and more money out of football. Ultimately, that's the type of scum they are - they're a known quantity. Parry has always operated under the guise of a football man and he's nothing of the sort.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
It's incredibly short-sighted by the EFL and the principle driver is Rick Parry, but not in the way he's been portrayed - as the enemy of the Premier League, doing all he can to help his charges in the EFL. In point of fact, he's the enemy of the Premier League apart from the Big Six. And he's not working for his charges in the EFL, he's working for the very same Big Six.

How can that be after all he's been saying?

Well, we start by assuming that none of non-Big Six are safe from relegation - not a unreasonable thing to assume. This has been demonstrated over the nearly-30 years of the Premier League. The PL only contains six actual ever-presents - Us, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool and Everton.

Given that, and being very generous, it can be argued that only seven clubs are safe from relegation - The Big Six and Everton, if you consider Everton's history of never having been relegated; let's call them the Safe Seven. The others, let's call them the Lower 13, can all realistically be relegated and who constituent clubs change form year to year. Every single one of the current Lower 13 has been relegated from the Premier League at some point - a number of them on more than one occasion.

What Rick 'I'm an unutterable ****' Parry is doing is classic divide-and-rule tactics. He's setting the EFL against the Premier League by painting all the clubs in the Premier League as part of an elite actively working against the interests of the clubs in the EFL. But the reality is that the Lower 13 have more in common with their EFL counterparts than with the Safe Seven.

Parry is really only setting the EFL against the Lower 13, not the PL as a whole or the Safe Seven, because the authors of the Big Fuckture need "inside men", within the PL structure. The only way to exert any pressure is to basically paint the Lower 13 as the pantomime villains, hoping that by doing so they'll crack. The only thing that seems to have outstripped the sliminess of the idea is the cack-handedness, seeing as the Lower 13 have pretty clearly seen beyond the pantomime and can see that any club outside of the Big Six will be signing away their power.

Out of the three principle arseholes involved, Parry is the worst. Henry and the Glazers have long been known as desperate to squeeze more and more money out of football. Ultimately, that's the type of scum they are - they're a known quantity. Parry has always operated under the guise of a football man and he's nothing of the sort.

No love for parry but many efl chairmen are backing the deal.
 

Dov67

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2005
3,318
10,212
It is a risk, but I think the risk is bigger for the likes of Leicester and Villa etc. Are sky going to want to pay big bucks for the premier league without the big 6? The lucrative overseas deals too. The EFL will revert to being the top league within one or two years. Given the money that’s going to be made by the big six I think they’d likely see the couple of years without Europe as a necessary investment.

Like I said though, it’s a nuclear option to force the premier league‘s hand. I don’t see it coming to that. There’s going to be all sorts of horse trading over the next few months to try and force the main thrust of this through. Things like the 9 clubs holding all the power could easily be traded off against the big six being allowed to negotiate their own foreign tv deals or at least being allowed to sell a portion of their own games.

Cuts both ways though. The reason other european leagues look on so enviously at our TV rights deal and the reason Sky & BT pay so much is because its unpredictable to a greater extent than any other league. Can you imagine Fiotentina beating Juve 7-2 or Getafe beating Real Madrid 7-2, or Nante smashing PSG?

Its that unpredictability that gets the lucrative TV deals. If you entrench the Big 6 as super elites whereby the only matches worth seeing are between those clubs then that changes the calculus as far as BT, Sky, ESPN etc etc are concerned.

I'm selfish, I'll admit.......my first and last thought is about what's good for THFC, but long term I'm not sure this is good for anybody.
 
Last edited:

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,315
Will be interesting to hear from the Managers when they do their pressers next week, no doubt the imp from Utd will be all for it, probably Klopp also.
Very interested to hear what Jose has to say.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
Yes but the money has to come from somewhere. As marty said they don't want it coming out of their own pocket.

They don't but they need to realize that it's a better option than giving away the money and losing power to the big six. They could set up a temporary deal if they wanted and review it in a year.

No love for parry but many efl chairmen are backing the deal.

That's why I was suggesting doing a separate deal for the rescue package. The EFL chairman are going to back any deal that keeps their clubs alive.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
No love for parry but many efl chairmen are backing the deal.

Purely because they get the cash now to save their clubs, and that is all that is relevant to them. I doubt very much the clubs that would think they would be in the PL within next couple of years would agree with them, but all, or at least the majority of League 1 and 2 will.

But there is nothing to say they would not get a similar cash injection by the Premier League clubs in full anyway when the PL meet up tomorrow, without the needs of selling your sole and be at the beck and call of 6 clubs (who could change the rules and payouts down the line anyway at the drop of a hat if they so wished). The 14 clubs as of now can do what they want without the backing of the Top 6.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
They don't but they need to realize that it's a better option than giving away the money and losing power to the big six. They could set up a temporary deal if they wanted and review it in a year.



That's why I was suggesting doing a separate deal for the rescue package. The EFL chairman are going to back any deal that keeps their clubs alive.

You seem to be suggesting it's an either or. They don't have to give the efl anything. I don' see amazon offering to help out the high street stores. Not saying they shouldn't just they don't have to.
 

Barmby Army

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2020
169
780
The reason other european leagues look on so enviously at our TV rights deal and the reason Sky & BT pay so much is because its unpredictable to a greater extent than any other league. Can you imagine Fiotentina beating Juve 7-2 or Getafe beating Real Madrid 7-2, or Nante smashing PSG?

Not sure that's a fair comparison given you're talking about a ridiculous outlier result, no reigning champions had conceded seven in PL history prior to the other day, and it was essentially a freak result given that three of Villa's goals were mad deflections.

The quality and unpredictability of the PL aren't really the reasons it's popular, it's because it's marketed better than anywhere else. And being an English-speaking country helps with worldwide popularity too.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Purely because they get the cash now to save their clubs, and that is all that is relevant to them. I doubt very much the clubs that would think they would be in the PL within next couple of years would agree with them, but all, or at least the majority of League 1 and 2 will.

But there is nothing to say they would not get a similar cash injection by the Premier League clubs in full anyway when the PL meet up tomorrow, without the needs of selling your sole and be at the beck and call of 6 clubs (who could change the rules and payouts down the line anyway at the drop of a hat if they so wished). The 14 clubs as of now can do what they want without the backing of the Top 6.

It's not just now though. They will get 25% of the pl money every year.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
PL clubs outside Big 6 have said they believe Rick Parry should resign, and will not help out the EFL whilst Parry is in charge
 
Last edited:

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
It's not just now though. They will get 25% of the pl money every year.

Which is no real difference to what they get now at all.
Only difference is the EFL would decide how to distribute it, whereas currently a large proportion is given to the clubs that are relegated from the Premier League in form of parachute payments.

So in effect they are basically telling clubs relegated from Premier League you will join Championship with much less money than you would have if you were relegated now. It would just stop all clubs outside the Big 6 from investing in players, because if they were to be relegated they would likely go into administration, without the aid of parachute payments covering their fixed player contracts.

So basically all this plan does is support EFL League 1 and 2 clubs, 6 teams in Premier League, and screws over 14 PL teams, and majority of Championship clubs (those that have recently been in, or have aspirations of being in PL)
 
Last edited:

Timberwolf

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2008
10,328
50,217
For all the duplicitous ****ery at play, there are some good ideas in there and something clearly needs to be done.

Rather than just passing it off at complete rubbish couldn't we just use this proposal as a blueprint? We cut out all of the 'sell your souls to Beelzebub' stuff while keeping some of the good ideas about the Premier League, and the parts that would save all of the EFL clubs. Suddenly the bottom 13 EPL clubs aren't all being screwed and there's actually a chance of the majority vote passing.

Not necessarily brilliant for Spurs but good for English football as a whole and more in line with the more fair model of the Bundesliga (where I think the Americans got a lot of their inspiration).
 

McArchibald

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2010
1,280
5,579
One thing that would be very good is giving the established PL clubs a vote on the potential takeover of one of them. That would prevent another Abramovich or Mansour from ever happening again. I'd even extend that scheme to the EFL.
Ideally there'd be a drive to stamp out dodgy owners of football clubs altogether. The present "fit-and-proper" criteria are a joke and have resulted in a vale of tears for many once respectable clubs and their fans who've fallen into the wrong hands...
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,131
146,025
One thing that would be very good is giving the established PL clubs a vote on the potential takeover of one of them. That would prevent another Abramovich or Mansour from ever happening again. I'd even extend that scheme to the EFL.
Ideally there'd be a drive to stamp out dodgy owners of football clubs altogether. The present "fit-and-proper" criteria are a joke and have resulted in a vale of tears for many once respectable clubs and their fans who've fallen into the wrong hands...

I agree to an extent, but it’s massively open to abuse.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
No love for parry but many efl chairmen are backing the deal.
I’m talking about the Lower 13, Baz - they can see what he’s about, even if they also believe that their stay in the PL is temporary.

But there are always short-sighted people and people in desperate situations who make bed decisions due to the stress they’re under. This is what makes this proposal so despicable - it’s using people’s fear, uncertainty and desperation to further an agenda, relying on their inability to make a fully-informed choice about what’s been put in front of them.

This is Hobson’s choice for some EFL club chairmen: They’re in a desert and someone’s offering them water in exchange for their shoes. They might need the water more urgently now, but they still also need their shoes.
 
Last edited:

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
One thing that would be very good is giving the established PL clubs a vote on the potential takeover of one of them. That would prevent another Abramovich or Mansour from ever happening again. I'd even extend that scheme to the EFL.
Ideally there'd be a drive to stamp out dodgy owners of football clubs altogether. The present "fit-and-proper" criteria are a joke and have resulted in a vale of tears for many once respectable clubs and their fans who've fallen into the wrong hands...
In theory, you’re absolutely right, Archie - unfortunately, the types of people who would be given that ability aren’t the types that worry about the suitability of the buyers as long as they have money.

The other problem is that we already have the likes of Abramovich and the Al-Nahyans entrenched in the PL. It’s already corrupted by their asset-stripping / inhumane money. Add Henry and the Glazers to that mix and I can’t see them putting up any resistance, even token, to the likes of the Saudi royal family or the Qataris and their pursuit of a PL sportswashing machine, can you?
 
Top