Plan to restructure the game | Page 5 | PASOTI
  • This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.

Plan to restructure the game

Biggs

Administrator
Staff member
✅ Evergreen
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Feb 14, 2010
12,901
6,561
Plymouth/London
buck197":2o67rp2j said:
The facts don’t support your case as Bury and Macclesfield have perished even before COVID and how many EFL clubs are operating at break even before this vile disease. I don’t wish any club to perish but lower league clubs are surviving because of owners financing them and not through revenue generated. The Championship is a farce as clubs are running at multi million pound loses as they try to buy a way into the PL. Where would we be without a SH funding us? I love the pyramid but I don’t think it’s sustainable in the long term even if COVID hadn’t arrived and COVID will be the catalyst to sink many clubs I fear. FFP is not working as clubs are still over spending/gambling in order to get up the leagues. You mention communities but in Plymouth I see far PL replica shirts than our clubs shirts, our community does not appear to back our club like it could or should.

There's a difference between clubs going out of business through mismanagement, and them not being viable in the first place. Accrington Stanley are an example of a club with similar or lower crowds than those two, and are doing very well. Clearly a club like Argyle with 10k+ regular customers should be viable and sustainable.

You can't acknowledge that the current game is unfair, poorly regulated and wealth distributed unequally, then also say the smaller clubs aren't viable. The second point is only true because of the first, which is the thing that needs fixing.

This is also talking through the prism of football clubs as pure businesses, when they are actually just as valuable and beneficial to society as community assets.
 

David Friio's mate

✅ Evergreen
Apr 8, 2019
435
529
Football Supporters' Association has come out against it.

https://thefsa.org.uk/news/project-big-picture-a-sugar-coated-cyanide-pill/

Project Big Picture: A sugar-coated cyanide pill
Posted on 13th October 2020


Football is in crisis, many clubs desperately need financial support to help them survive, and the game’s wealth has to be shared more fairly – but the ‘Project Big Picture’ plans are not the answer and they would be an absolute disaster for our game.

The insatiable greed of a small handful of billionaire owners cannot be allowed to determine the structure of football in this country.

Their desire to stitch things up behind closed doors, without even speaking to their fellow clubs, let alone fans, makes crystal clear the urgent need for the Government’s promised fan-led review of football governance.

We are not defending the status quo but ‘Project Big Picture’ is not the answer.

Supporters are open to new ideas to improve football’s governance but we don’t remember any fans making the argument that what football really needs, is for more money and power to be handed to the billionaire owners of our biggest clubs. That trend is already built into the system, and we need to stop it, not accelerate it further.

Within the proposals there are individual ideas which many fans would back – but in this form it is impossible to disentangle them from outcomes which would be a disaster for the game.

Premier League impact

The Premier League would be reduced in size from 20 teams to 18 and more money would be directed towards the most successful teams, who in turn would hoover up even more of the best players, reducing competition throughout the entire league.

League rules would be controlled by as few as six clubs who would gobble up a bigger share of the pie than they already do while abolishing the League Cup and Community Shield.

The ruling clubs would be Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Southampton, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham, as determined by their length of service in the Premier League. Media reports suggest the plans are being driven by the owners at Liverpool and Manchester United.

A vote by two-thirds of those clubs would dictate the rules for the rest, meaning half of the top-flight’s clubs would compete in a league which they had no say in running.

The named clubs would also control the “distribution rights of the sponsorship, commercial and broadcasting rights sold” and would be allowed to “alter in a material way the nature of the competition” which opens the door again to Game 39 or even madder schemes.

As six clubs can set the rules, who could stop them ending relegation from the Premier League and creating a franchise system like they have in US sports? No one. Who could stop them from rewriting the rules in a few years so that the top six keep all the media money? No one. Who could stop them cutting funding entirely to the EFL or grassroots football? No one.

Supporters cannot let the greed of a few billionaire owners destroy our league system.

And what about the EFL?

For EFL clubs the impact could be even more drastic. While Project Big Picture dangles an alleged £250m “rescue fund” in front of clubs to cover lost revenues during the 2019-20 season they might actually be a sugar coated cyanide pill.

Apparently “money will be advanced to the EFL from increased future revenues”. Is there a guarantee that the money will even materialise? The entire package is based on projected revenues which are, in turn, based on the current media deal. Where is the guarantee that will happen?

Under the proposals top-flight clubs retain eight games per season which they can sell directly via their own platforms, rather than broadcasting in the traditional manner. Would broadcasters pay more money for fewer games? It seems unlikely. Especially if the clubs chose to keep the rights for the games which are deemed most attractive to a global audience.

EFL clubs would also lose all League Cup revenue as that competition will be nuked, which in turn will see their own media revenues collapse, as broadcasters will not pay nearly as much for EFL rights, if the League Cup is no longer part of the package. Although maybe that wouldn’t matter as “the EFL irrevocably grants its broadcast rights to the EPL”!

Since six billionaire club owners can change the rules of the game at any time they like, and would control almost all of the revenue, there is no guarantee that they won’t pull up the drawbridge and cut funding entirely to the EFL, as it signed its own death warrant.

The billionaire owners have created a set of rules they can change at any time. It’s a one way street and there is no way back for domestic football once that power is handed over.

The FSA

We wouldn’t reject all the ideas – a £20 away cap on top-flight tickets and subsidised travel, guaranteed away allocations, and safe standing areas are all things we back – but the reality is that the overall package is not acceptable to supporters.

A rescue package for EFL and National League clubs is needed alongside better distribution of football’s wealth across the game to close the gap between the Premier League and the rest of the pyramid.

As an organisation we’re more than happy to consider changes to football’s structure but the place for that is the Government’s proposed fan-led review and it has to include all interested parties – fans, clubs, leagues, players, match officials, the FA, and so on.

It is not acceptable for billionaire club owners to hatch a plan in secret and then try and use the fallout from a global pandemic to buy compliance from financially crippled clubs.

We will be making that case in the strongest possible terms to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and all the football authorities, including the FA Council which meets on Thursday.

The Premier League and Government have to step up and deliver an alternative financial package urgently for the EFL and National League. It should cover lost gate receipts and matchday income. And urgently means details in hours, not days or weeks. Days or weeks means clubs going bust. Days or weeks means EFL clubs being tempted by the sugar-coated cyanide pill offered up by billionaire owners who do not understand or care about our football culture.

It’s now or never.
 

PL2 3DQ

Site Owner
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Oct 31, 2010
24,516
1
11,064
That's a great statement from FSA and sums up my feelings.
 

Biggs

Administrator
Staff member
✅ Evergreen
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Feb 14, 2010
12,901
6,561
Plymouth/London
It is, though I'd have re-phrased the 'do not understand or care about our football culture' at the end. I'd resist literally even the smallest thing that could be used to paint fans as xenophobic or resistant to change, even though that was absolutely not the intention with that passage and I agree with it.

Perhaps the compelling point should be that we have an open and inclusive, deep football pyramid that is admired and envied all around the world. Which throws up upsets and Davids beating Goliaths that you don't get anywhere else.

Need to be really really cute and clever about this, given the size of the challenge.
 
Apr 9, 2011
1,775
288
Lousy_Pint":3iolxxma said:
Even if this plan doesn't get the go ahead now, we all know that it (or something very similar) will in the not too distant.

Absolutely soulless people with no regard for fans. Americans... the world's muggers!

Parry should be sacked immediately.

And notice, no mention of the cup competition with the U21 prem teams (I really don't know the name of it). If anything needs scrapping, surely it is that. It won't be long before the U21s (or B teams, whatever) will be in the league.

The trouble is, at our level, no-one gives a toss. For example, the BBC football webpage yesterday, not a key pressed about L1 & 2, even though there were no precious prem matches.

Slightly Peeved in Italy
Entirely agree. What makes it even more farcical is the fact BBC are treated like little puppies scrapping around for crumbs by the arrogant Prem being made to feel thankful they are allowed to keep their precious Match of the Day. Its as though according to them football doesnt exist if there is no Prem matches being played they cant even be bothered to put on final score
 
Aug 23, 2009
539
403
Southway
I’d be very disappointed if he was.
I get that a lot of clubs are backed into a corner but personally as far as football goes for me , it’d be the straw that broke the camels back.
 

Argyle Nutter

Golf Liaison Officer ⛳️
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Brickfields Donor
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Jan 16, 2006
1,592
358
56
On the sunny side of the street
Herts_Green":aw5kkjn1 said:
Apparently the vast majority of EFL owners love this proposal. I hope Simon Hallett isn’t one of them.

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1 ... 30434?s=21

Sky sports reporting that an 85% majority are in favour of the proposals. Then when you read the article in their app, they have only had a response from 17 clubs and 85% of the 17 were in favour.
Not like a Sky Journo to mislead joe public.
 
Mar 7, 2006
3,158
1
On secondment in Kent
Clearly a lot of short termist chairman in the EFL.

Even the other PL teams have said they don’t like it. Yes something has to be done to save the game, but giving more power to those that have been the main cause of its demise is surely the wrong answer.

£250m and some TV revenue now? 2 years time that revenue % will undoubtedly drop? No guarantee that it is in perpetuity.

Either these chairman see it as a way to make a quick buck, or they are that strapped that this is the only lifeline they have. Surely no one sees it as a good solution with a level head?

Good that Man City are not in favour given they have been in the lower leagues in recent times.
 
May 16, 2016
7,304
5,165
One angle from the EFL chairmenthat support it, might be the acceptance of their clubs never winning a major trophy or getting to the premier or even championship, in which case just take the money because long term, nothing has changed for them, just a few quid comes there way.
 

Biggs

Administrator
Staff member
✅ Evergreen
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Feb 14, 2010
12,901
6,561
Plymouth/London
Guiri Green":37dy1nrb said:
One angle from the EFL chairmenthat support it, might be the acceptance of their clubs never winning a major trophy or getting to the premier or even championship, in which case just take the money because long term, nothing has changed for them, just a few quid comes there way.

Exactly, assuming that the big clubs keep their promise to give over 25% of the TV revenues... which could change or have crafty strings attached.

The biggest pi55take is to fellow or aspiring Premier League clubs, who were in an equal, democratic, one-club one-vote system (and for all the PL's faults, that is one of its admirable traits) but would suddenly find themselves as second-class citizens with no say despite being in the same league.

It would be a similar situation to billionaires in the UK offering to give up 25% of their wealth to bail out Covid-affected businesses, but then insisting that in future they have the power to vote in whatever government they like.

That element of the plan is effectively corruption IMO.
 

Biggs

Administrator
Staff member
✅ Evergreen
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Feb 14, 2010
12,901
6,561
Plymouth/London
I think the PL are 'happy' ( :think:) to provide assistance to L1 and L2 clubs but they would look on the Championship clubs as being total basket cases with super rich owners themselves who don't really deserve to be bailed out.

You can see why... say... Sheffield United wouldn't really want to help out... say... Reading, who made a £40m loss last year while racking up ridiculous wages and buying players for £5m. And owned by a Chinese billionaire, and a potential future threat to Sheffield United's place in the Premier League.
 
Sep 25, 2010
3,286
560
Good news

Protect Big picture, has been rejected by the Premier league,

So sold off the owners of Liverpool and Manure, for trying to power grab.