Jump to content

Football Thread 2020/2021


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Fry Crayola said:

I'm gutted, but it strikes me that that may be the best Irish performance since they beat Italy in Euro 2016. They were hard working losers against France and then had four years of utter tedium. Hopefully that's going to turn around now.

 

The only saving grace is that an Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland playoff would have been absolutely toxic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, turns out it's more annoying the next day when you were the better team. There isn't the shrug of acceptance that came with that 5-1 Denmark hammering.

 

3/10 in playoffs now for Ireland. Luckily, I have a secret up my sleeve, and that secret is that I can see Windsor Park from my home. Perhaps I can live vicariously through the splitters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Premier League going back to the old tv slots with Sky & BT sport and all other games will switch to a PPV service for £14.95 per match - this seems a dumb move.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in their right mind is paying these ridiculous one-off fees to watch one game? Unless I've horribly misunderstood, realistically to catch your team's games it would set you back about £100 a month across various subscriptions and pay-per-views. It's absolutely shameless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old TV slots will still be covered by the subs to Sky or BT Sports - its the extra games that have been shown which will go PPV.

 

This is where it gets ugly I suspect as Super Sunday will become Burnley v Newcastle at 230pm with WBA v Fulham at 430. The midday and 715pm KOs (if they keep those slots) will be Spurs v Arsenal and Liverpool v Man City.

 

You can see the cunts stitching us up like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gotters said:

The old TV slots will still be covered by the subs to Sky or BT Sports - its the extra games that have been shown which will go PPV.

 

This is where it gets ugly I suspect as Super Sunday will become Burnley v Newcastle at 230pm with WBA v Fulham at 430. The midday and 715pm KOs (if they keep those slots) will be Spurs v Arsenal and Liverpool v Man City.

 

You can see the cunts stitching us up like this.

 

Nah, I think they will want to ensure subscribers are kept happy to stop them cancelling altogether because I think the prospect of streaming games would be far more damaging to Sky in the long-term so I think it's more likely that the Burnley v Newcastle is the type of game to go to PPV. I don't imagine they would expect to get massive returns on such endeavours but enough to make it worthwhile.


As has been pointed out (I think you've posted articles from The Athletic about it recently?) streaming is coming so I don't think Sky want to have large numbers of subscribers starting to get used to that model quite so soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

these are the first round of matches not selected to be on Sky Sports or BT Sports, so will be PPV 

 

every week will see Burnley or Newcastle on PPV unless playing a big team

 

Chelsea vs Southampton

Leicester vs Aston Villa

Newcastle vs Man United

Sheffield United vs Fulham

West Brom vs Burnley

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gotters said:

these are the first round of matches not selected to be on Sky Sports or BT Sports, so will be PPV 

 

every week will see Burnley or Newcastle on PPV unless playing a big team

 

Chelsea vs Southampton

Leicester vs Aston Villa

Newcastle vs Man United

Sheffield United vs Fulham

West Brom vs Burnley

 

That backs my point up somewhat then, none of them are 'big' games, possibly Leicester vs Villa and Newcastle vs Man Utd would find themselves on TV, but the rest are pretty much expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gabe said:

 

That backs my point up somewhat then, none of them are 'big' games, possibly Leicester vs Villa and Newcastle vs Man Utd would find themselves on TV, but the rest are pretty much expected.

 

yeah, Sky & BT sport will want to protect their subscriber base - who will now be up in arms as have been getting every game for a few months now.

 

the choice of games will depend on that and how the revenue is actually split, if most is going to the clubs & league then it's in Sky & BT interest to keep picking the biggest games they can to not cannibalise their core business any further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this, in any way, discourage the rampant streaming that has been going on for the last few years?

 

Who is going to subscribe to Sky and BT and be happy to fork out even more to watch their team?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone forking out to watch the non Big Clubs on Sky and BT was on a hiding to nothing anyway.  As I've said before, they don't even broadcast some clubs the minimum agreed amount - though they still pay as if they have.

 

At 14.95, that's only a tenner less than it costs me to actually go to the game.  And I'm in the second most expensive area in the stadium. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Saturday 3PM kick off now PPV.

 

I wonder if that will go back in the box once fans can attend again??

 

Also where does that £14.95 go - how much does the club get and how much goes to Sky?

 

Is there a scenario where the big, big clubs getting a sizeable cut of that £14.95 are actually better off if they can move all their games to PPV than if fans were back in especially if the pubs end up closing. Lots of Man U/Liverpool fans etc around the country?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ork1927 said:

Lots of Saturday 3PM kick off now PPV.

 

I wonder if that will go back in the box once fans can attend again??

 

Also where does that £14.95 go - how much does the club get and how much goes to Sky?

 

Is there a scenario where the big, big clubs getting a sizeable cut of that £14.95 are actually better off if they can move all their games to PPV than if fans were back in especially if the pubs end up closing. Lots of Man U/Liverpool fans etc around the country?

I think if all the games were ppv then surely most clubs would be better off even with stadiums fully open? It depends how it effects the other TV deals but I can't see this going back in the box. 

I'm actually amazed it's taken this long. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ork1927 said:

Also where does that £14.95 go - how much does the club get and how much goes to Sky?

 

Is there a scenario where the big, big clubs getting a sizeable cut of that £14.95 are actually better off if they can move all their games to PPV than if fans were back in especially if the pubs end up closing. Lots of Man U/Liverpool fans etc around the country?

 

I can't remember what the actual viewing figures are for matches on Sky, but I think they would need around 533,000 buyers to match what they get for a standard Sky broadcast.  That is assuming that the full fee goes to the club.  Off the top of my head, clubs get £8m for broadcasting a game, so divide that by your 14.95. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

£15 a match is ridiculous. Sky/BT aren’t really showing matches for the fans of the teams playing, the actual numbers come from the people who were just interested enough to put it on. Like, Villa and Leicester will probably be a good game, you’d watch that if you’re sat on your arse in front of the telly. You’re not paying £15 for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what a mess, several clubs against this but still got 19/20 approving with only Leicester voting against (good on them).

 

Sky/BT to cover the PPV games and will get their costs covered out of PPV sales, no uniform approach on season ticket holders (so in theory some clubs have taken money and won't make the game available to watch 'free'). £15 based on its better than the EFL which charges a tenner.

 

full story from the Athletic

 

Spoiler

For the first time since 2007, when Sky Sports’ PremPlus channel was disbanded, football fans in the UK will have to use a pay-per-view service to be able to watch certain Premier League games on TV from next weekend.

On Friday, the Premier League announced that matches in October which have not already been selected for live coverage will be available to watch via the BT Sport Box Office or Sky Sports Box Office platforms. The price? £14.95 per game.

A solution for screening the matches had to be found after the planned return of fans from October 1 was scrapped by the British government due to a rise in COVID-19 cases across the country. However, what the Premier League said were “interim” arrangements were roundly criticised by supporters. And while the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) welcomed the decision to broadcast the matches, it also urged BT Sport and Sky Sports to “reconsider their pricing”.

The decision to make matches available on PPV was not a unanimous one, with Leicester City voting against the proposal. The Athletic understands that other clubs also voiced their objections, only to vote in support of the plan anyway.

But why were so many Premier League clubs in favour of turning to PPV? How much additional revenue can clubs expect to make, and how do they plan to spend it? And are hard-up supporters being ripped off? 

The Athletic answers the key questions…

Who approved the plan? 

The result was an emphatic 19-1 when votes were cast by the 20 Premier League clubs, with Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive said to have spoken “passionately” against the proposals.

Manchester United chief executive Ed Woodward also argued against the plan and others declared their own reservations, particularly around the logistics of how to deal with season-ticket holders, but ultimately only Leicester formally objected in the vote.

The absence of supporters, due to COVID-19 restrictions, continues to leave clubs with a shortfall in revenue and there is a collective desire to start clawing some of that money back as the uncertainty spreads in the closing months of 2020.

Although the Premier League and its 20 clubs were willing to make some fixtures free-to-air as a bargaining chip in Project Restart, with the BBC among the beneficiaries, it was done so with the hope supporters would be allowed back into grounds from October.

The government’s change in policy for public events has forced professional games to stay behind closed doors for the foreseeable future and Premier League clubs were unwilling to keep on giving away additional games “for free” via Sky Sports and BT Sport.

Rob Webster, Sky Sports’ managing director, said: “The Premier League has come to this decision with its clubs to provide a service for supporters who are no longer able to attend and to generate matchday revenue. We are happy to support them with this interim solution — and we share their desire to get fans back into grounds as soon as it is safe to do so.”

Why did 19 clubs vote for it if more than one had concerns?

Clubs across the Premier League are known to have been “taken aback” by the ferocity of the reaction to the announcement. “It is a plague on all our houses except Leicester,” said one club source.

Leicester, though, were not the only club to raise issues at the meeting. There were concerns that it would constitute a PR own goal on the back of a transfer window in which the 20 clubs committed to spending more than £1 billion in transfer fees and there was also disagreement over the money to be charged. 

One senior executive at a Premier League club said they would rather watch Match of the Day than pay £15 for a match. Another source told The Athletic after the meeting: “If you ask 20 millionaires to go into room and decide what £15 means, this is what happens. It has failed the Netflix test, one game is more than a monthly Netflix subscription.”

Woodward was said to have been a strong questioning voice, though rival club sources dispute the intensity of his opposition to the final proposal. Ultimately all bar Leicester voted in favour of the proposals in the spirit of collective responsibility. 

A source said that it is not unusual for clubs to speak passionately against proposals in meetings between the 20 clubs, but then — once they know the numbers — vote with it, both so that the Premier League appears united and also because they know they might need the support of clubs leading the charge on the issue later on down the line. A source said: “Premier League votes are like being in the Prime Minister’s cabinet. It is seen as an act of betrayal and often futile to vote against the majority when you know you don’t have the numbers to win.”

For example, The Athletic understands that Manchester United were not the only club to speak against the plan only to vote for it in the end.

One other theory that has been floated is that the leading clubs are unlikely to object to an arrangement that would also test the appetite for a Premier League streaming service that could work in their favour. Smaller clubs have always been against the separate sale of rights as they would likely generate less money for them and more for big clubs. This PPV run could prove that.

How was the price decided upon and why make this announcement now?

Fans of EFL clubs have been paying £10 per game throughout this season, including ties in the Carabao Cup and EFL Trophy. That figure is set by the EFL and charged universally by all 72 clubs.

The £14.95 fee for Premier League games is almost 50 per cent up on that but they will argue the production’s quality of service, such as multiple camera angles and analysis, makes it a superior package to that offered in the EFL. The PPV price is also less than major boxing bouts, which typically cost between £20 and £25.

The timing of the announcement is nevertheless lousy. No sooner have clubs finished their spending in the transfer market, they are asking supporters to dig deep once more to continue watching their team.

The Football Supporters’ Association are among those asking for the pricing to be reconsidered. “Many Premier League clubs have already taken money from fans, particularly season ticket holders, for matches they can’t attend so we urge them to get refunds out to those supporters as soon as possible,” a spokesperson said.

“We’ve also already heard from many supporters and FSA members who are concerned about the £15 per game being charged and we’d urge BT Sport and Sky Sports to reconsider their pricing for these games.”

The Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust went further, saying the high pricing could be damaging to society not just fans’ finances.

“The price of £14.95 per game is too high. And because it is too high, it could have damaging effects – not just on individual’s finances at a time when many are stretched,” it said. “It will encourage use of illegal streams, therefore diverting money from the game. And it will encourage people to gather in households and pubs to watch games together.”

What matches are likely to be selected for PPV?

Broadcasters have already picked their games up to the start of November, with five of the 10 games in each round going to either Sky Sports or BT Sport.

That leaves five other games to be broadcast every weekend on PPV. The first three games to be played on Sky Sports Box Office will be Newcastle United vs Manchester United on Saturday 17 October (8pm), with Leicester City vs Aston Villa on Sunday 18 October (7.15pm) and then the ugly duckling of West Brom vs Burnley on Monday 19 October (5.30pm).

Sky Sports and BT Sport are willing to facilitate these broadcasts but they also have their own product to protect. They will continue to keep picking the most attractive fixtures to satisfy their own customers in these financially challenging times, meaning the divisions less popular clubs are more likely to have to shell out more regularly to watch their team on TV.

How will the revenue be distributed among clubs?

Under the EFL model, Championship clubs sell streaming passes through their own websites and are entitled to keep the money they earn. That makes it a more profitable exercise for the division’s bigger clubs, such as Nottingham Forest and Derby County, who can bring in more money than their lesser counterparts.

The Premier League has made the decision to hand over the broadcast of PPV games to Sky Sports and BT Sport and while that could mean the money raised will be placed in a central pot and distributed among the 20 clubs, a decision has not yet been reached.

Sky Sports and BT Sport, who plan to use their own pool of commentators and pundits, will only cover their broadcast costs and not make any profit from the PPV games.

Will non-subscribers be able to watch matches shown on PPV?

They will. You do not need to be a subscriber to either Sky Sports or BT Sport to access PPV games. But you will need to register with the provider ahead of the fixture.

Sky Sports Box Office is already a designated PPV channel predominantly used for boxing events, while BT Sport Box Office was also set up in 2018 to broadcast boxing, UFC and WWE events. 

Those are the channels are lined up to host the Premier League’s PPV games.

Do clubs plan to refund existing season-ticket holders?

Not as things stand. Each club has taken a different approach to selling season tickets for 2020-21 and will have their own decisions to make. 

It is understood that the issue of how this would affect season-ticket holders was discussed and that the idea of giving passes to season-ticket holders was explored but the differing circumstances at every club made this too complex.

Liverpool, for example, have shelved season-ticket sales for this campaign so have nothing to refund supporters. Leicester are another to have held back on the collection of season-ticket money until it becomes clear when supporters are allowed to attend games again. 

Southampton and Crystal Palace are issuing refunds to season-ticket holders on a pro-rata basis for every game played behind closed doors, but the absence of a blanket approach across the division has only muddied the waters.

The EFL, which announced every game could be streamed after lockdown, gave every season-ticket holder free access codes as a means of compensation, but the Premier League are not expected to follow that lead.

How long is this “interim solution” likely to last?

The hope — albeit faint — is that this can be a measure for October only. 

The Premier League joined voices with the EFL, The FA, Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship this week to call on supporters to be safely allowed back into grounds “as soon as possible.” Richard Masters, chief executive of the Premier League, was among those to add his signature to a letter to supporters, with the return of testing programmes top of the agenda.

The decision over when fans will be allowed back into grounds ultimately rests with the government but the rising COVID-19 infection rate is not helping the cause. That would point to this becoming a long-term solution.

Why does the Premier League not use this opportunity to set up its own streaming service?

That would be a logistical headache the Premier League is not ready for. As things stand it has domestic broadcast deals worth £4.5 billion with Sky Sports and BT Sport and the appetite to set up a streaming service is not currently there.

The EFL’s platform, iFollow, has encountered regular problems when streaming live games and the Premier League would need to be sure its product was not diminished during its live coverage. 

Amazon Prime, the American giant and newcomers to the Premier League scene, was broadcasting with a delay last season and picture quality on platforms such as Netflix also suffered during lockdown.

That is not to say the Premier League will not go down that road in the future once technological advances are made.

Will international broadcasters replicate this model?

This is a very British problem that needed to be addressed. 

Broadcast packages sold overseas are not limited to the same restrictions, with all games made available to supporters based outside of the UK, so the lucrative agreements struck with overseas broadcasters will be unaffected.

Will the additional income be put towards an EFL rescue package?

That’s an impossible question to answer at present but let’s be clear: this is a step designed to fill the financial void of Premier League clubs. They are out of pocket as the wait goes on to bring fans back into stadiums and this will help claw back some of that shortfall. They are looking after No 1.

How much money is raised from these PPV broadcasts will be fascinating. A club like Leeds United, who won promotion out of the Championship in July, were selling as many as 25,000 streaming passes to their supporters, albeit at home and overseas.

If the average Premier League PPV fixture, say, shifts 40,000 passes at £14.95 then it will be a return of £600,000 minus the broadcast fees. Although all income will be gratefully received, these are hardly life-changing sums for a Premier League club.

Does that change the financial landscape when it comes to an EFL bail-out? Given the reluctance to help out clubs in the Championship to this point, it would seem unlikely. In a recent Premier League meeting Woodward suggested that the Premier League borrow £1 billion and give £300 million to the EFL. This did not receive backing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AfromB said:

Gary Neville and Paul Scholes have just spent the entire Salford v Tranmere match sitting next to each other with no masks on. :doh:

Part of the same bubble, work related perhaps?  Who knows anymore?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - Liverpool & Utd are apparently driving a radical shake up of the PL and below if this is in the Telegraph is to be believed, too much detail to be a complete fabrication

 

behind paywall I believe so article in spoilers https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/10/11/world-exclusive-man-utd-liverpool-driving-project-big-picture/

 

Spoiler

Manchester United and Liverpool are the driving force behind the biggest changes to English football in a generation and an extraordinary overhaul of the Premier League, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The two clubs have worked together on a radical set of proposals – called “Project Big Picture” - that will reshape the finances of the game. The Premier League, the most lucrative sports league in the world, would see a reduction to 18 teams, and controlling power in the hands of the biggest clubs.

In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League’s inception in 1992 there will be £250 million rescue package to the Football League to see them through the Covid crisis.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal the details of the working document “Revitalisation” authored by Liverpool’s American ownership Fenway Sports Group with support from United. It anticipates the backing of the other members of the so-called big six, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur.

 

In a remarkable set of proposals, which will send shockwaves through the game, 25 per cent of the Premier League’s annual revenue will go to the EFL clubs with £250 million paid up front to see them through the current crisis. There would also be a gift of £100 million to sustain the Football Association.

However, there would be an abolition of the one-club, one-vote principle that has sustained the Premier League since its inception as well as the abolition of the threshold of 14 votes to pass any decision or regulation change.

Under the new proposals, the Community Shield would be abolished CREDIT: Shutterstock

Under the new proposals, the League Cup and the Community Shield would be abolished. There have been additional discussions that the League Cup would survive but without the participation of the clubs in Europe.

There would be two automatic promotion places for Championship clubs, but the third, fourth and fifth placed clubs would be in a play-off tournament with the 16th placed Premier League club.

The nine clubs who have been in the Premier League for the longest - which includes the big six - would dictate its running in every aspect and would be free to play more games in the expanded Champions League that is anticipated from the 2024-2025 season onwards.

As well as the Premier League dropping from 20 clubs to 18, there would be 24 in each of the Championship, League One and League Two making a total of 90.

The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry who has held talks with Liverpool’s principal owner, the American investor John W Henry, and shareholder and director Mike Gordon. In addition, Parry has spoken to the Glazer family, who own United.

The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry  CREDIT: AP

The talks began in 2017 but have been accelerated since the coronavirus pandemic has thrust football into the grip of crisis with no fans in stadiums until March at the earliest. Liverpool and United are prepared for a fierce debate over their proposals but they want them implemented as soon as possible.

The Revitalisation document calls for immediate action to cut dramatically what it calls the “revenue chasm” in earnings from television contracts between the Premier League and the EFL. In order to discourage Championship clubs from gambling recklessly on promotion, the parachute payments system would be abolished in favour of the 25 per cent share of Premier League revenue being shared more equitably among EFL clubs.

Under proposals for the new model of distribution of television revenue in the Premier League, Fenway, the driving force behind the document, insist there would be no greater share for the top six. Their stated aim is to eliminate the huge gap in earnings between Premier League and EFL clubs while in return having a greater control of the decisions made by the Premier League.

The document says: “A reset of the economics and governance of the English football pyramid is long overdue”.

The proposals also rewrite the Premier League’s 20-club democracy in favour of placing huge power in the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division. As things stand that is the big six, as well as Everton, Southampton and West Ham. Those nine clubs afforded “long-term shareholder status” would have unprecedented power, with the votes of just six of them required to make sweeping changes. These clubs would even be able to veto a new owner taking over a rival club.

The power would move into the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division - which includes West HamCREDIT: Getty Images

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Parry said that he had the support of many of his 72 members, many currently facing financial ruin, to go ahead with the plan. He said: “What do we do? Leave it exactly as it is and allow the smaller clubs to wither? Or do we do something about it? And you can’t do something about it without something changing. And the view of our clubs is if the [big] six get some benefits but the 72 also do, we are up for it.”

He accepted there would be opposition from the Premier League clubs outside the big six who would see it as detrimental to their financial prospects with less money and two fewer places in the top flight.

“It is definitely going to be challenging and it is an enormous change so that won’t be without some pain,” Parry said: “Do I genuinely think it’s for the greater good of the game as a whole? Absolutely. And if the [big] six are deriving some benefit then why shouldn’t they. Why wouldn’t they put their names to this otherwise?”

The proposals include:

£250 million immediately to the EFL to compensate its clubs for lost matchday revenue, deducted from future television revenue earnings and financed by a loan taken out by the Premier League

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

Premier League to go to 18 clubs from 20

£100 million one-off gift to the FA to cover its coronavirus losses, the non-league game, the women’s game, the grassroots

8.5 per cent of annual net Premier League revenue to go on operating costs and “good causes” including the FA

From the remainder, 25 per cent of all combined Premier League and Football League revenues to go to the EFL clubs

Six per cent of Premier League gross revenues to pay for stadium improvements across the top four divisions, calculated at £100 per seat

New rules for the distribution of Premier League television income, overseas and domestic, including proposals that base one portion on performance over three years in the league

The abolition of the League Cup and the Community Shield

24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two reducing the professional game overall from 92 clubs to 90

A women's professional league independent of the Premier League or the FA

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.

Financial fair play regulations in line with Uefa, and full access for Premier League executive to club accounts

A fan charter including capping of away tickets at £20, away travel subsidised, a focus on a return to safe standing, a minimum away allocation of eight per cent capacity

Later Premier League start in August to give greater scope for pre-season friendlies, and requirement for all clubs to compete once every five years in a summer Premier League tournament

Huge changes to loan system allowing clubs to have 15 players out on loan domestically at any one time and up to four at a single club in England

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume it's similar to other clubs but the Community Shield and League Cup are cheaper to go to than league games.

 

And as a family this means we go to FA Cup, League Cup and Champions League group games for this reason.

 

This would result in me being able to go to fewer games. This will be true of many normal fans.

 

But who gives a shit about normal fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Gotters said:

Wow - Liverpool & Utd are apparently driving a radical shake up of the PL and below if this is in the Telegraph is to be believed, too much detail to be a complete fabrication

 

behind paywall I believe so article in spoilers https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/10/11/world-exclusive-man-utd-liverpool-driving-project-big-picture/

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Manchester United and Liverpool are the driving force behind the biggest changes to English football in a generation and an extraordinary overhaul of the Premier League, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The two clubs have worked together on a radical set of proposals – called “Project Big Picture” - that will reshape the finances of the game. The Premier League, the most lucrative sports league in the world, would see a reduction to 18 teams, and controlling power in the hands of the biggest clubs.

In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League’s inception in 1992 there will be £250 million rescue package to the Football League to see them through the Covid crisis.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal the details of the working document “Revitalisation” authored by Liverpool’s American ownership Fenway Sports Group with support from United. It anticipates the backing of the other members of the so-called big six, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur.

 

In a remarkable set of proposals, which will send shockwaves through the game, 25 per cent of the Premier League’s annual revenue will go to the EFL clubs with £250 million paid up front to see them through the current crisis. There would also be a gift of £100 million to sustain the Football Association.

However, there would be an abolition of the one-club, one-vote principle that has sustained the Premier League since its inception as well as the abolition of the threshold of 14 votes to pass any decision or regulation change.

Under the new proposals, the Community Shield would be abolished CREDIT: Shutterstock

Under the new proposals, the League Cup and the Community Shield would be abolished. There have been additional discussions that the League Cup would survive but without the participation of the clubs in Europe.

There would be two automatic promotion places for Championship clubs, but the third, fourth and fifth placed clubs would be in a play-off tournament with the 16th placed Premier League club.

The nine clubs who have been in the Premier League for the longest - which includes the big six - would dictate its running in every aspect and would be free to play more games in the expanded Champions League that is anticipated from the 2024-2025 season onwards.

As well as the Premier League dropping from 20 clubs to 18, there would be 24 in each of the Championship, League One and League Two making a total of 90.

The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry who has held talks with Liverpool’s principal owner, the American investor John W Henry, and shareholder and director Mike Gordon. In addition, Parry has spoken to the Glazer family, who own United.

The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry  CREDIT: AP

The talks began in 2017 but have been accelerated since the coronavirus pandemic has thrust football into the grip of crisis with no fans in stadiums until March at the earliest. Liverpool and United are prepared for a fierce debate over their proposals but they want them implemented as soon as possible.

The Revitalisation document calls for immediate action to cut dramatically what it calls the “revenue chasm” in earnings from television contracts between the Premier League and the EFL. In order to discourage Championship clubs from gambling recklessly on promotion, the parachute payments system would be abolished in favour of the 25 per cent share of Premier League revenue being shared more equitably among EFL clubs.

Under proposals for the new model of distribution of television revenue in the Premier League, Fenway, the driving force behind the document, insist there would be no greater share for the top six. Their stated aim is to eliminate the huge gap in earnings between Premier League and EFL clubs while in return having a greater control of the decisions made by the Premier League.

The document says: “A reset of the economics and governance of the English football pyramid is long overdue”.

The proposals also rewrite the Premier League’s 20-club democracy in favour of placing huge power in the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division. As things stand that is the big six, as well as Everton, Southampton and West Ham. Those nine clubs afforded “long-term shareholder status” would have unprecedented power, with the votes of just six of them required to make sweeping changes. These clubs would even be able to veto a new owner taking over a rival club.

The power would move into the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division - which includes West HamCREDIT: Getty Images

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Parry said that he had the support of many of his 72 members, many currently facing financial ruin, to go ahead with the plan. He said: “What do we do? Leave it exactly as it is and allow the smaller clubs to wither? Or do we do something about it? And you can’t do something about it without something changing. And the view of our clubs is if the [big] six get some benefits but the 72 also do, we are up for it.”

He accepted there would be opposition from the Premier League clubs outside the big six who would see it as detrimental to their financial prospects with less money and two fewer places in the top flight.

“It is definitely going to be challenging and it is an enormous change so that won’t be without some pain,” Parry said: “Do I genuinely think it’s for the greater good of the game as a whole? Absolutely. And if the [big] six are deriving some benefit then why shouldn’t they. Why wouldn’t they put their names to this otherwise?”

The proposals include:

£250 million immediately to the EFL to compensate its clubs for lost matchday revenue, deducted from future television revenue earnings and financed by a loan taken out by the Premier League

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

Premier League to go to 18 clubs from 20

£100 million one-off gift to the FA to cover its coronavirus losses, the non-league game, the women’s game, the grassroots

8.5 per cent of annual net Premier League revenue to go on operating costs and “good causes” including the FA

From the remainder, 25 per cent of all combined Premier League and Football League revenues to go to the EFL clubs

Six per cent of Premier League gross revenues to pay for stadium improvements across the top four divisions, calculated at £100 per seat

New rules for the distribution of Premier League television income, overseas and domestic, including proposals that base one portion on performance over three years in the league

The abolition of the League Cup and the Community Shield

24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two reducing the professional game overall from 92 clubs to 90

A women's professional league independent of the Premier League or the FA

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.

Financial fair play regulations in line with Uefa, and full access for Premier League executive to club accounts

A fan charter including capping of away tickets at £20, away travel subsidised, a focus on a return to safe standing, a minimum away allocation of eight per cent capacity

Later Premier League start in August to give greater scope for pre-season friendlies, and requirement for all clubs to compete once every five years in a summer Premier League tournament

Huge changes to loan system allowing clubs to have 15 players out on loan domestically at any one time and up to four at a single club in England

 


Surely none, or very little, of it will come to pass though? Why would clubs not included in the ‘big nine’ agree to less power.


Shit power flex by the two clubs. Embarrassed to support one of them reading that shite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst changes are needed in the way the leagues are structured to protect clubs going under, this is ridiculous. As @glb said, embarrassed to support one of the two putting this forward.

 

I think we are edging closer to a closed system akin to the NHL / NBA / MLB with a European Major League with domestic minor leagues.

 

Drafts, trades and affiliates are going to be the future. 

 

Because off all the terrible shit in the world, traditional football is going to be consigned to the history books. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed reading it that they were aiming for the moon in terms of what a 'big club' would want so they can jettison loads of it and show how flexible they've been.

 

You never start these things with a list of demands that are non-negotiable

 

In setting out the 9 founder members you don't have to convince many more with ideas of grandeur who'd like to swap over to go along, and in the smaller leagues you're offering a life jacket to people who are drowning, they aren't going to question the colour or fabric too much.

 

Some of it is needed, smaller PL, distribution of wealth to lower leagues, scrapping one of the domestic cups and the charity shield and mechanisms to stop most of the Championship bankrupting themselves in trying to get at least one season in the PL to then pick up parachute payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.