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

[Everlasting Seconds]

The issue isn't the overall content of this proposal. The issue is what would become the situation AFTER potentially handing over power to a limited number of clubs, and what measures they have in mind moving forward after the power is surrendered. This should be fought down.
Apart from scrapping the league cup.

 

[nailsy]

I think the point is that it would gut the heart out of the premier league and they’d then struggle to get the big tv money without the big clubs. They’d then simply apply all these new rules to the efl and wait for the other prem clubs to come crawling back. It’s the nuclear option.

Risky though. As soon as they resign the other teams can table a motion for their own changes. They could agree to give the EFL the 25% they want without the powershift, change the TV arrangements so that every team gets equal coverage, etc. And presumably the Premier League could insist that the teams that resigned would need to earn promotion again, they would need to keep paying their players the same wages, etc. I wonder how long they would be prepared to sit outside the Premier League and miss out on Champions League qualification if it came to it. Can Arsenal afford to do that? Can we?

 

[Rosco1984]

This is a classless and disgusting power grab through the exploitation and blackmail of desperate clubs in a desperate situation and even with Spurs as one of the beneficiaries of this I cant condone any support from our club for this proposal. 25% of tv money in the premier league should be given to the EFL anyway. The premier league would never have existed without it and many top players in the league who these clubs benefit from wouldn't have become the players they are without it. English football should be English football not two separate entities the premier league and the EFL should all be the English FA.

 

[Tucker]

Risky though. As soon as they resign the other teams can table a motion for their own changes. They could agree to give the EFL the 25% they want without the powershift, change the TV arrangements so that every team gets equal coverage, etc. And presumably the Premier League could insist that the teams that resigned would need to earn promotion again, they would need to keep paying their players the same wages, etc. I wonder how long they would be prepared to sit outside the Premier League and miss out on Champions League qualification if it came to it. Can Arsenal afford to do that? Can we?

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.

 

[Stamford]

Can they get rid of international friendlies please, completely pointless

 

[spursfan77]

Four clubs relegated and only two going up is the proposal.

Someone in the Telegraph said the right to show (and charge for) eight PL games worldwide exclusively on their own club digital platforms is the driving force behind this for United and Liverpool. How many people worldwide would pay a tenner a game to watch a Man U match they can't see anywhere else? 5 million? 20 million? Who knows? If it's 5m that's 8 x £50m per season.

And that's why United and Liverpool have sprung this not just on the rest of the league but on us, Arsenal, Chelsea and City. No way any fixture those four play will bring in comparable revenue. They want a Real Madrid/Barcelona situation with the next four 'big' clubs giving legitimacy to a league they can't really compete in.

Liverpool and Man Utd have been pursuing this ever since Fenway took over. Here are articles from 2017 about them meeting to get more of a share of the oversees TV rights.

Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool owners hold secret meeting in New York

The supremos dined at the Locanda Verde restaurant in the Tribeca district last week, making no secret of their meeting in a popular eatery

www.mirror.co.uk

REVEALED: The night Arsenal, Liverpool and United chiefs met in NY

CHARLES SALE - EXCLUSIVE: The traditional Premier League Big Three, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool have held talks in a fancy New York restaurant this week.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League’s top clubs lose clash over TV rights

Richest clubs fail in bid to gain bigger share of cash from overseas broadcast deals

www.ft.com

FT article on what subsequently happened in the spoiler below.

Spoiler

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach ofFT.comT&Csand Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/2bad682a-b8cf-11e7-8c12-5661783e5589

England’s richest football clubs have suffered a setback after their domestic rivals united to fight off their demands to receive a greater share of the £3bn the Premier League receives from overseas television broadcasting deals. Since the Premier League’s founding 25 years ago, revenues from international broadcast contracts have been split evenly across each of its 20 clubs. As the value of Premier League deals boomed, the wealth was spread across the teams. The model is credited with making it among European football’s most financially equitable and competitive leagues. But the wealthiest teams, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur — known as the big six — wanted a shift in the model. They demanded that 35 per cent of overseas TV income be distributed according to where a team finished in the league table. On Tuesday, the Premier League, the body which operates the top tier of English football, said there was “no consensus for change”, leading it to call off a meeting of club executives that was due to be held on Wednesday to vote on the proposals. “In the absence of a significant majority in favour of doing things differently, the current rules will apply,” a Premier League spokesman said. Three people familiar with the discussions said that Richard Scudamore, executive chairman of the Premier League, felt compelled to back the changes due to the unusual level of agreement between the big six, which are seen as the best supported clubs by international audiences. Others close to the organisation expressed concern that failure to reach a settlement could yet push the big six towards a breakaway league, which has been discussed among Europe’s leading clubs for many years. Each of the 20 clubs in the top tier of English football also benefits from a £5.1bn domestic broadcasting deal with Sky and BT, but teams that finish higher in the league or have their matches featured more on TV receive a bigger proportion on that income. Overseas rights deals are seen as providing a greater opportunity for growth. Last year, the Premier League secured a $700m three-year TV rights deal with Chinese digital broadcaster PPTV. American broadcaster NBC also paid $1bn for a six-year deal to screen Premier League matches in the US. The issue over how to split overseas TV cash has been debated fiercely among the clubs, but three people familiar with the talks said at least 10 clubs have consistently opposed the move. The Premier League works on a one club, one vote process — requiring 14 votes to enforce a change to how it works. “We are exhausted trying to find a compromise position,” said an executive close to the talks. “Now we’re moving on.”

 

[TheRevolution]

It sounds like clubs like Arsenal and Man U who have been struggling to perform in recent years want a way to be at the top regardless of on pitch performances. I can see this turning into reserved European spots for the top clubs.

 

[nailsy]

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.

When are the TV rights up for renewal though? Contracts are already signed for the next few years aren't they? And the EFL money needs to be sorted out now.

 

[Marty]

When are the TV rights up for renewal though? Contracts are already signed for the next few years aren't they? And the EFL money needs to be sorted out now.

Nothing's been announced for the UK past the 21/22 season. Scandinavia has been sold in a six year deal 22-28 but as far as I know that's the only signed deal past 22 as it was done pre-COVID and all other bidding processes have been put on hold.

 

[Lilbaz]

Out of curiosity would utd be considered one of the big 6 if they got relegated this season?

 

[ralphs bald spot]

Its a move towards what it becoming the almost inevitable European League - this and PPV in the same week is hardly a coincidence. I think Wenger has spoken some sense about it - should we be diluting the English game and it being driven by money franchises from America

 

[McFlash]

I was chatting to a little gaggle of Liverpool fans at my local during the England game (socially distanced, of course) and while a couple of them are pretty young, the landlord and landlady are massive fans and regular match goers (which is no mean feat considering they have a young family and run a pub down south).
They were all unanimously against this whole idea, citing that it's all down to "those fucking American owners" at both clubs.

It made me wonder how popular this idea is amongst the proper fans of Man U and Liverpool, as opposed to the plastics on social media.

 

[Trix]

Out of curiosity would utd be considered one of the big 6 if they got relegated this season?

Lol none of the big six are going to get relegated anytime soon. They all have too many goals in them atm.

 

[carmeldevil]

Out of curiosity would utd be considered one of the big 6 if they got relegated this season?

They'll add a rule that the original founders of PL can't be relegated

 

[Lilbaz]

Lol none of the big six are going to get relegated anytime soon. They all have too many goals in them atm.

I know but it would be interesting to know the answer.

 

[nailsy]

If the teams that are pushing this are trying to garner support for it by including the EFL Rescue package in it, then why don't the fourteen non big six teams join forces to push through a separate rescue package? They have the numbers to do it and it would force the other proposals to be pushed through on their own.

 

[Marty]

If the teams that are pushing this are trying to garner support for it by including the EFL Rescue package in it, then why don't the fourteen non big six teams join forces to push through a separate rescue package? They have the numbers to do it and it would force the other proposals to be pushed through on their own.

An interesting nugget from Matt Slater on the Ornstein & Chapman pod today was just how tense the relationship between the bottom half Premier League clubs and the Championship clubs is. Owners of the Championship clubs really hate Palace, Burnley, Brighton etc., obviously partly through jealousy but also because by protecting their financial interests the bottom half PL clubs are the real obstacle to both rescue packages and other means to help bridge the wealth gap.

Also interesting that Rick Parry wanted the PL to go from 22 to 18 way back in '95 but the clubs only agreed to go to 20.

 

[Lilbaz]

If the teams that are pushing this are trying to garner support for it by including the EFL Rescue package in it, then why don't the fourteen non big six teams join forces to push through a separate rescue package? They have the numbers to do it and it would force the other proposals to be pushed through on their own.

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.

 

[Scissors&Tape]

I know but it would be interesting to know the answer.

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

 

[nailsy]

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.

You're talking about the current proposal. They can come up with their own proposal and structure it how they want.