'New Deal for Football'

[BaZ87]

The Times are reporting a long list of reforms from 2024 are being discussed by the PL. I guess no everybody will subscribe to the Times so some bullet points of the ideas being discussed are as follows:

• No more FA Cup replays.
• Teams in Europe will either not compete in the League Cup or field u21 teams.
• Parachute payments will be greatly reduced.
• Extra funding will go to the EFL however this will be paid on a sliding scale so more money goes to those at the top of the Championship than those at the bottom.
• Tighter spending restrictions on PL clubs, similar to UEFA's new version of FFP where by clubs have to reach a certain breakeven threshold but also cannot spend more than x% of turnover on wages and transfer fees. PL will push for EFL to introduce the same.
• The PL would provide infrastructure grants to the EFL - money towards stadium improvements etc.

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk

So essentially the PL are bribing the EFL - free up the calendar with no more FA Cup replays and European sides in the League Cup and we'll pay you more money, and we'll pay for it with less money going to relegated PL sides.

 

[BaZ87]

This is a PL wide plan, not the top 6. The reason why many of the smaller PL sides will want this plan is because it will allow them to stop losing millions of pounds each season. As things stand, in order to compete they have to spend more than they can afford to but as soon as a cap like this is put into place then it prevents everybody from spending ott.

UEFA are introducing this same cap and it is likely to be even stricter than the PL's.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

 

[BaZ87]

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?

 

[BaZ87]

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.

 

[BaZ87]

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

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.

 

[BaZ87]

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.

 

[BaZ87]

Well we all already know that, also don’t act like the sly6 wouldn’t jump ship again in a heartbeat if they through they could get away with it this time.

Well Liverpool couldn't. It's been written into the articles of the club that any decision such as this would need approval from a newly formed supporters board.

Newcastle definitely would, if they were considered big enough. You only have to look at what the Saudi's are doing in Golf.

 

[BaZ87]

Sex pest ole Hairy hands at it again?

Row brewing over Liverpool and Manchester United's involvement in Premier League chief executive search

Rivals of the two most successful teams in English football are concerned they had an 'unofficial veto' during recruitment process

www.telegraph.co.uk

Here's the original report from the New York Times:

The Long Search to Fill Soccer’s Biggest, Toughest Job (Published 2020)

Why did it take the Premier League more than a year to hire a chief executive? The answer might lie in who was given a say, and in a growing gap between the rich and the even richer.

www.nytimes.com

 

[BaZ87]

The teams that voted against the deal for the EP have been leaked.

Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool, West Ham, Aston Villa, Wolves, Nottingham Forest, Crystal Palace and Bournemouth.

A) What's this got to do with FFP? B) The report claims there was no vote and these were the sides that, allegedly, told the PL not to have a vote because there was no agreement.

 

[BaZ87]

feel free to move it. Only posted here since it’s linked to finance.

Ok the clubs that are against funding the lower leagues and have threatened to sue the government.

Yea, it doesn't say that either. Did you read the article? It claims those clubs told the PL that it wasn't worth holding a vote. It says separately that prospect of canning the deal was raised (not by any particular club(s)) and also claims that some clubs (none named) have been privately discussing (not in the meeting) taking the government to court if forced to do so.

 

[BaZ87]

The mail.

x.com

x.com

So you didn't read the article.

Top-flight sides met on Monday in the hope that a vote would be held on an offer to be made to the EFL over a financial settlement ahead of the arrival of the game’s ombudsman.

But such a ballot did not even take place as no fewer than half the league made it clear beforehand that it was not worth doing so.
Mail Sport understands those clubs were Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool, West Ham, Aston Villa, Wolves, Nottingham Forest, Crystal Palace and Bournemouth.

As part of what was a forthright meeting, the prospect of canning the deal entirely was raised, while a plan to take on the government in court, should it be deemed necessary to do so, is known to have been discussed separately between clubs.

As I said, the article claims these clubs told the PL it wasn't worth even voting on the deal. It does not name the club(s) who raised the prospect of canning the deal or who are privately discussing taking the government to court.

 

[BaZ87]

Ok so I made a small jump from the clubs against the deal. (pointing out there was no point in a deal) to the ones also discussing legal action.

Not a huge jump is it?

It kind of is because there's a huge difference between saying there's no point having a vote to even saying they're against the deal, let alone that they're going to sue the government. There could (although I suspect it's unlikely) be sides in favour that said there was no point in voting - if you know something is not going to pass then it's just a waste of time to vote on it.

No PL club wants to give more of their money away. We all know that and this is why this same deal has been dragging on for 18 months and just gets kicked down the road. We know that the PL (collectively and individually) don't want a regulator too so it's no shock that they're already planning on how they can challenge. As the article says, worst case scenario is they delay things and they don't have to pay the money for x months/years.

 

[BaZ87]

The single biggest reason for FA Cup replays is that is gives a lower league side a slightly greater chance of a big pay day away to a Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal etc. It is absolutely bonkers that the financial stability of lower league sides (can) rest on the lottery of getting a replay vs Arsenal. As I said earlier in the thread, there's a very simple solution and that is scrap all prize money for PL sides. The FA Cup is won by the same half a dozen sides and winning it is worth sub 1% of their revenue - they don't need that money. Just total up what the PL sides would have earned from their FA Cup runs and put that towards a fund for the EFL & Non League - that way every side earns some money rather than 1 club every 2 or 3 seasons wins the lottery and gets a big replay.

 

[BaZ87]

I somehow don't think the EFL will be too keen on this idea. Thanks to the massive financial gap between the PL and Championship, huge parachute payments to relegated sides and the PL's desire to impose a 70% spending cap on EFL sides but an 85% cap on relegated PL sides (85% of much greater revenue too), the EFL already believe the PL is fast becoming a 23 team League with 3 sides yo-yoing between the two divisions. Not only does this idea half the number of sides that have the possibility of getting promoted but also makes it hugely likely that only 2 sides will be promoted each season.