'New Deal for Football'

woppy101 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Bigpig said:
Sex pest ole Hairy hands at it again?

www.telegraph.co.uk

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 www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Here's the original report from the New York Times:
www.nytimes.com

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 www.nytimes.com
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Bigpig said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Bigpig said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bigpig said:
The mail.

x.com

x.com x.com
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
Bigpig said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
I also think that the league cup should be scrapped entirely. We have enough football without it. The fielded teams are often 3rd/4th choice players and it is not taken seriously, because it's not a serious cup. It's the least cared about and it shows. Nobody watches even the final unless their team are in it. It just feels unimportant, irrelevant and mickey mouse. A complete waste of time, effort, money and fatigue/injury burden on the players where there are other priorities for the majority of clubs. Even the mid to lower table clubs in it still prioritise the premier league over it.

FA cup replays I agree should be abolished. I don't think many would disagree with that. Again, we have enough football already without replays. Nobody likes replays. They want the tie done on the first fixture. Only Europa and CL should have home and away legs.
 
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.
 
Personally I don't mind replays, but max 1 replay probably makes sense. I remember playing Leeds in the 4th round and needing 3(?) replays, IIRC they were making the quarterfinal draw before we'd even finished the 4th round heh.
Back then I think there was less delays due to policing, I think they insist on 10 days between the first match and the replay nowadays.
 
robfosters said:
3rd in championship plays 18th in premier league. Sounds rubbish I know, but what a game that could be and it gives both clubs an opportunity, one for survival and one for glory
Click to expand...
I like this idea.

Because the current promotion fight games are just rerunning extra league games.

If the non-automatic promotion teams had to play the teams in relegation of the other league the whole situation could be done with one game.

3 premier teams in the relegation zone play 3 teams from the 1st division, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

If the 1st division team wins they get promoted. If they lose then there is no relegation of the premier team.
 
BowdonUK said:
I like this idea.

Because the current promotion fight games are just rerunning extra league games.

If the non-automatic promotion teams had to play the teams in relegation of the other league the whole situation could be done with one game.

3 premier teams in the relegation zone play 3 teams from the 1st division, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

If the 1st division team wins they get promoted. If they lose then there is no relegation of the premier team.
Click to expand...

Don’t they do something similar with the SPL?

The game would be great. I’d actually do it for two game. Potentially get rid of 4 dead weights in one swoop in the PL.
 
I don't like the idea of the team finishing 2nd not getting promoted, they've been the 2nd best team over 46 matches but then they just lost a one off vs a team bottom of the premier league that probably was prepping for that game for ages.

I mean imagine the sceanrio right, the 20th team in the PL often is relegated before the final day, so they are just resting players and prepping for the big playoff match, anyone on 14 yellows or whatever the threshold is isn't getting anywhere near the pitch, meanwhile the team 2nd in the Championship might have been going 100% because they had a sniff of automatic promotion.

A team with 20 points in the PL scrapes through past the team with 90pts in the Championship, I'm not having it sorry. Maybe the team in 20th is genuinely better than the team in 2nd but I'm still not in favour.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom