-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Plan to restructure the game
- Thread starter cheshiregreen
- Start date
Martyn":1zhy81pp said:
I don't think it's the last we've heard of it, though. It smacks of an extreme first attempt to test the water, to be followed up with similar proposals that seem reasonable in comparison.
If they decide to pursue a Super League (which would clearly be harmful to the English game, despite people happy for them to bugger off) they can also turn around and say 'hey, we offered our proposals and you rejected it'.
I'm a little confused, Sky Sports reporting the proposal was rejected unanimously, does that mean Liverpool and Man Utd voted against their own proposal?
Argyle Nutter":1y4qew2v said:
So... 14.5 clubs then?
Brighton said yes, 'and hove albion' said no.
According to BBC, ‘Project Big Picture’ has been voted down and is dead in the water. I can’t see this being the end of the matter, they’ll dress it up as something else then have another go.
Good reason for the game to be restructured, but not as the Premiership want it to be!
The EFL are not innocent in all this. There has to be change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08sw2w0/bury-bringing-football-back
The EFL are not innocent in all this. There has to be change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08sw2w0/bury-bringing-football-back
I don't think we should underestimate the scale of the crisis facing lower league football, and if we are back to the drawing board in terms of a plan, that is no cause for celebration.
Obviously there were some aspects of these proposals that were unacceptable. But they did at least represent a meaningful financial contribution from the Premier League towards the football structure that supports it.
Keep in mind that the large contribution to the lower leagues/grassroots was surely as much of a sticking point for the lesser PL clubs who've voted this down as the governance changes.
Only last week you had the Crystal Palace Chairman arguing that Sainsbury's aren't expected to bail-out cornershops facing financial problems, so why should the top flight clubs have to help the lower leagues?
Obviously the Man Utds and Liverpools are motivated by self-interest. But they are never going to be relegated and can easily afford to redistribute a chunk of their income to the less well-offs.
Their interests are much less clearly in conflict with Argyle's than the likes of Crystal Palace, who want to protect their place in the top flight and maintain the financial chasm between themselves and clubs of similar stature who happen to be in a lower division (which this plan would have greatly reduced).
Undoubtedly a flawed plan has been rejected. But that does not mean that the alternative that emerges will not be even worse. Meanwhile financial armageddon for clubs outside the PL gets closer by the day.
Obviously there were some aspects of these proposals that were unacceptable. But they did at least represent a meaningful financial contribution from the Premier League towards the football structure that supports it.
Keep in mind that the large contribution to the lower leagues/grassroots was surely as much of a sticking point for the lesser PL clubs who've voted this down as the governance changes.
Only last week you had the Crystal Palace Chairman arguing that Sainsbury's aren't expected to bail-out cornershops facing financial problems, so why should the top flight clubs have to help the lower leagues?
Obviously the Man Utds and Liverpools are motivated by self-interest. But they are never going to be relegated and can easily afford to redistribute a chunk of their income to the less well-offs.
Their interests are much less clearly in conflict with Argyle's than the likes of Crystal Palace, who want to protect their place in the top flight and maintain the financial chasm between themselves and clubs of similar stature who happen to be in a lower division (which this plan would have greatly reduced).
Undoubtedly a flawed plan has been rejected. But that does not mean that the alternative that emerges will not be even worse. Meanwhile financial armageddon for clubs outside the PL gets closer by the day.
All bail out money was going to be loans. 25% of tv right income would be partially offset by the removal of parachute payments and as the 25% was to be unevenly distributed, chances are that the clubs that loose the parachute payments were likely to get them replaced by a large share of the tv rights instead.
A power grab dressed up as a deal which probably wouldn’t have made much difference.
A power grab dressed up as a deal which probably wouldn’t have made much difference.
GreenThing":34hlxyac said:
You might be right about this, but it's just speculation. The plan's authors had actually said that this money would be more evenly distributed than under the current arrangement, and the fact that the overwhelming number of L1 and L2 clubs that spoke out were strongly in favour of the proposals suggests they believed that would have been the case. Removing parachute payments, which effectively stay with PL clubs and massively distort competition in the Championship, would be an unequivocally good thing btw.
The bigger worry for me, was that with the big clubs allowed to sell off rights to some of their games individually, it would have ended up being 25% of a much smaller pot.
I'm not saying that the plan was a good thing, just that a) it contained some elements worth pursuing b) there's every chance that what we'll end up will be worse, rather than better and c) we haven't got time to keep going back to the drawing board.
Just done some Googling and the PL get £4.35 billion over a 3 year contract, that’s £1450 million a year.
25% of that is £362.5 million, which is the figure to be handed out to the FL.
Now, £243 million is paid out in parachute payments plus another £100 million Solidarity Payments (whatever that means).
In short, the 25% is approx £20 million more than what will be saved by scrapping the parachute payments, assuming the Solidarity payments are included. So should we sell out and hand power to the to clubs for the price of a PL benchwarmer?
25% of that is £362.5 million, which is the figure to be handed out to the FL.
Now, £243 million is paid out in parachute payments plus another £100 million Solidarity Payments (whatever that means).
In short, the 25% is approx £20 million more than what will be saved by scrapping the parachute payments, assuming the Solidarity payments are included. So should we sell out and hand power to the to clubs for the price of a PL benchwarmer?
GreenThing":1274asmf said:
But the parachute payments aren't in any meaningful way a payment to the EFL. They only go to a tiny number of teams who were recently in the PL, and their net effect is to hand these clubs a massive advantage over their Championship rivals. Most clubs don't see a penny.
So from Argyle's perspective, the hypothetical figures you quote suggest an effective increase of £263 million.
This would be very significant. I hope subsequent proposals get near such a sum. David Conn, the UK's leading football finance writer, notes in his column today that a redistribution from the wealthier clubs on that scale has never previously been contemplated, and is deeply pessimistic about it remaining on the table:
"a possible, gloomy result of the review can be imagined, where some ugly parts of Henry’s plan, more power and money for the big clubs, are conceded, but none of the progressive parts."
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ll-be-back
Brixton 'ill Pilgrim":2wz87kw9 said:
It has been mentioned that the money would not be split equally, so the clubs who miss out on parachute payments would likely get the lion’s share. I can’t see it as much different as before, just window dressing.
