'New Deal for Football'

Don
OP
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
The plan is mostly a bodge job that doesn't really solve much in all honesty. The calendar needs clearing and more money needs to find its way down to the EFL and there's such an easy way to do that but instead we're going to do something half arsed and revisit the situation in a few years time.

Just scrap the League Cup altogether and cut the PL to 18 teams as it was always meant to be from the day it started. The only reason we still have a League Cup is because it's the biggest money maker for the EFL and it's the biggest money maker because of the likes of Liverpool, Utd etc. Keeping it without those sides will see the revenue it generates tumble but we'll still have a load of fixtures that nobody really cares about and because 13 PL sides are still in it, it doesn't help much with the calendar issues. Even EFL sides put out 2nd strings in it these days and we all talk about nobody respecting it but it's almost always won by the biggest clubs. Just get rid of it and clear a huge space in the calendar at the start of the season. Cutting the PL to 18 sides won't make any meaningful difference to the revenue the League makes but the £200m odd that gets paid to the sides finishing 19th & 20th will make a huge difference to the EFL.

On top of scrapping FA Cup replays, give any EFL side that draws a PL side the option of playing home or away - they can decide whether they want home advantage of whether they want the big pay day from a trip to Anfield. Also, don't give PL sides any prize money from the FA Cup. I think winning it is only worth around £1-2m, which is a drop in the ocean to a PL side - at the end of the competition tot up the total that would have been paid to PL sides and redistribute it to all lower and non league sides.

Doing those few things will provide the EFL with all the money it requires without any of the PL sides losing a penny and it also cleans up the calendar. And if a PL side wants to go to the Far East to play a friendly in the winter break, so what, let them. We celebrate the fact that the PL is a global League and the biggest reason why the PL is so far ahead of the rest of Europe is because of it's global appeal but everybody acts offended if clubs go to these countries. We're happy to accept the billions in revenues that these fans generate the League but don't dare go and play a friendly over there!
Climb up the ladder then kick it out.
It's the small 14 that are kicking the ladder away, which is the point you're seemingly missing. This is a PL wide plan that will need the support of at least 14 clubs and the reason why enough of the smaller sides will want this is because they cannot afford to keep losing 10s if not 100s of millions of pounds. Putting spending limits in place that prevents all clubs from ****ing money up the wall will mean they no longer need to lose that money in order to stay 10th in the PL. Look at the history of the PL and you'll see almost all clubs have lost money and for the vast majority, they've never achieved anything for those losses. These clubs have seemingly decided that it's cheaper for us to achieve nothing this way. Does it create a glass ceiling? No because one is already there, this just further reinforces it.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Jan 2008
Posts
7,224
Location
Leeds
Climb up the ladder then kick it out.

You seem to have completely disregarded that there's more sides to this... the perspective of the 14 other clubs who risk their stability as a club to stay competitive with those around, meaning it's less about their development and more about survival and gambling.

This league shouldn't be about 'surviving' for the 14 other clubs.

I think you're a Newcastle fan though... and you're probably getting a bit flappy that your owners might not be able to throw money at the problem ;)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Oct 2006
Posts
10,257
Location
Tatooine
You seem to have completely disregarded that there's more sides to this... the perspective of the 14 other clubs who risk their stability as a club to stay competitive with those around, meaning it's less about their development and more about survival and gambling.

This league shouldn't be about 'surviving' for the 14 other clubs.

I think you're a Newcastle fan though... and you're probably getting a bit flappy that your owners might not be able to throw money at the problem ;)
Not particularly they have already rushed rules in to prevent first party sponsorship etc.

Think this year was the first time that domestic income was surpassed by foreign. So not surprise at the friendlies abroad part.

Some wealthy clubs in the PL with their hands tied outside of the top 6.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
6,500
Location
Krypton
. So not surprise at the friendlies abroad part.
Do you think the 'elite' clubs want to reduce the amount of domestic games to play friendlies abroad during the season?

The amount of CL games is increasing when the new format kicks in for a start.
 
Last edited:
Don
OP
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
So not surprise at the friendlies abroad part.
Friendlies abroad part? You haven't just got annoyed about something that isn't even in the reported plan have you? There is absolutely no reference to teams playing friendlies abroad in the Times article.

But as I said in my last post, if sides want to play a friendly in their winter break (assuming it will come back once normality returns) then what is the problem with that? As you say, overseas revenue is now more than domestic revenue so why shouldn't sides be going abroad and giving something back to the millions upon millions of supporters around the world that make the PL the most dominant League in the world.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Oct 2006
Posts
10,257
Location
Tatooine
Friendlies abroad part? You haven't just got annoyed about something that isn't even in the reported plan have you? There is absolutely no reference to teams playing friendlies abroad in the Times article.

But as I said in my last post, if sides want to play a friendly in their winter break (assuming it will come back once normality returns) then what is the problem with that? As you say, overseas revenue is now more than domestic revenue so why shouldn't sides be going abroad and giving something back to the millions upon millions of supporters around the world that make the PL the most dominant League in the world.
I would never get my knickers in a twist over something I have miss read.

Seen it mentioned a few places.

It's just seems its a nail in the coffin again for domestic football in general.

But hey football sold its soul decade's ago.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
18,654
I would never get my knickers in a twist over something I have miss read.

Seen it mentioned a few places.

It's just seems its a nail in the coffin again for domestic football in general.

But hey football sold its soul decade's ago.
This is hilarious coming from a Newcastle fan ngl.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Oct 2006
Posts
10,257
Location
Tatooine
This is hilarious coming from a Newcastle fan ngl.
Liverpool fans still yapping? Fell off that high horse yet?

Like I said i don't give a hoot who owns the club. I don't parade around on a high horse with fake values.

PL been full of dirty money for decades but its OK if the money been washed and gone through a few bank accounts first. Out of sight out of mind huh.
 
Don
OP
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
It's just seems its a nail in the coffin again for domestic football in general.
I genuinely don't understand this point. Why would playing a midseason friendly put any sort of nail domestic football's coffin? How much money do you think Liverpool, Utd or whoever could possibly earn from a single game overseas? I'd guestimate £5m tops. Is that going to make any meaningful difference to clubs with turnovers of £600m odd?

This is not specific to you but I don't get this attitude some people have regarding playing overseas. We accept £bn's from these countries and have the most dominant league in the world thanks to them but we're unwilling to give anything back to them. If and when the calendar was trimmed and we are in a position to have a proper winter break, like most leagues in Europe then why can't the PL centrally organise for clubs to go abroad on a mini training camp and play a single friendly in various countries around the world? The money can all be put into one pot and distributed with the rest of the PL's money so there's no advantage to the top sides. It's not like clubs don't already go on warm weather training camps when their schedule allows for it.
 
Don
OP
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
PL have to find a way of keeping the monopoly of the Sky/Sly6 at the top table somehow, can’t have another team like Leicester spoiling the party again can we.
Are we talking about the same Leicester that have lost hundreds of millions in actual cash terms in the past few years? And by PL you mean the clubs, including members of the small 14?
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Oct 2007
Posts
8,775
Location
newcastle
Are we talking about the same Leicester that have lost hundreds of millions in actual cash terms in the past few years? And by PL you mean the clubs, including members of the small 14?
Just because Leicester have spend poorly after they won the PL doesn’t mean other clubs would make the same mistake, these new rules will mean that no other club will be able Challenge the Sky6 and eventually be able to have the same turnover, just how the 4 American owners want it. Can’t be interfering with that cash cow can we.
 
Don
OP
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
Just because Leicester have spend poorly after they won the PL doesn’t mean other clubs would make the same mistake, these new rules will mean that no other club will be able Challenge the Sky6 and eventually be able to have the same turnover, just how the 4 American owners want it. Can’t be interfering with that cash cow can we.
Leicester haven't spent poorly - they've regularly sold players for far more than they signed them for. Leicester have just faced the reality that trying to compete with clubs with far greater revenue than them often leads to huge financial consequences. This isn't specific to those trying to catch the sides at the top but at every rung of the ladder, from the EFL all the way up to the top of the PL. And you're ignoring the fact that it's these clubs that are seemingly wanting this.

edit: and you know that Newcastle (or whoever) would be subject to tighter financial restrictions by UEFA the second they qualified for the Europa Conference League? The PL are just adjusting their profit and sustainability rules to fall in line with UEFA's.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
14 Oct 2007
Posts
8,775
Location
newcastle
Leicester haven't spent poorly - they've regularly sold players for far more than they signed them for. Leicester have just faced the reality that trying to compete with clubs with far greater revenue than them often leads to huge financial consequences. This isn't specific to those trying to catch the sides at the top but at every rung of the ladder, from the EFL all the way up to the top of the PL. And you're ignoring the fact that it's these clubs that are seemingly wanting this.
More likely the Sly6 have threatened to run off again if the other 14 don’t agree to it
 
Last edited:
Don
OP
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
More likely the Sly6 have threatened to run off again in the other 14 don’t agree to it
And Richard Masters is corrupt, you forgot that one :p

Whether you or me like it or not, the clubs want these rules. Enough of the small 14 owners are more concerned with losing 10s of millions each year than they are chasing the end of the rainbow.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Oct 2006
Posts
10,257
Location
Tatooine
And Richard Masters is corrupt, you forgot that one :p

Whether you or me like it or not, the clubs want these rules. Enough of the small 14 owners are more concerned with losing 10s of millions each year than they are chasing the end of the rainbow.
Didn't Liverpool and ManU veto the female that was due to take over from the pervious chairman?

Threw the toys out of the pram and wanted Masters in charge:0
 
Don
OP
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
Didn't Liverpool and ManU veto the female that was due to take over from the pervious chairman?

Threw the toys out of the pram and wanted Masters in charge:0
I think you've mixed up multiple stories into one. It was the role as CEO. There was a female candidate that was offered the job but withdrew and there was another person that was offered the job and resigned before starting work after he was outed as a sex pest. It was reported that a 3rd candidate had also been offered the job but prior to taking it had to speak with Utd and Liverpool as they have some sort of veto over the role. It was reported that Liverpool's feedback on him (to the PL, which in turn is the clubs) was positive but no comment was made on Utd's views however the PL's recruitment team (which was made up of a representative from Chelsea, Leicester & Burnley) later withdrew the offer.

Now I know the above doesn't suit your wild conspiracy but that was what was reported and it's surely fairly logical that the two most powerful clubs in the league by a long distance would have a bigger say in the role of the CEO but as above, the decision to not follow through with the job offer was ultimately taken by representatives from Chelsea, Leicester and Burnley.
 
Back
Top Bottom