Poll: Premier League Shake-Up?

[BaZ87]

A massive story just coming out in the Telegraph. Liverpool and Utd, supported by the rest of the big 6 and the entire EFL are proposing massive changes in the structure of the PL. They want to cut the League down to 18 sides, scrap the League Cup and Community Shield, allow the top 6 (+ Everton, Southampton & West Ham) to have complete control of decision making in the PL and in return they will massively increase the payments made to the EFL.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...an-utd-liverpool-driving-project-big-picture/

How they're going to convince at least 5 more PL clubs to back this plan, I've no idea but they've got the full backing of the EFL and maybe that's the pressure they need to sway a few of the other PL sides.

 

[BaZ87]

They're proposing to give more PL tv money to the EFL guys! I've not given it a massive amount of thought as yet but on the face of it, this proposal works for everybody except the other 11-14 PL sides. The top 6 get the calendar cut down to create more space for them to play in an expanded CL and or a future FIFA club tournament and the EFL get much much more money than before. It's just the smaller PL sides that are having to give up more of their PL money without the perks a bigger CL/FIFA tournament.

 

[BaZ87]

Exactly. The big 6/9 stay the big 6/9 and the other teams just fight it out and never get the chance of competing for the title or Europe again.

Is that any different to now though? The only realistic way a side outside the current top 4/6 can break into the CL spots is with massive outside investment - Everton or Leciester receiving £10m less in TV money isn't really going to have a meaningful impact on their prospects of challenging the top 4/6.

From a sporting integrity point of view, I don't see much of an issue here. Nothing being proposed is going to make a meaningful difference to how successful sides would be or can be - the same sides will be competing for titles/europe, the same sides will be scrapping around midtable and the same sides will be in relegation battles. The issue is financial. 2 of the other 14 sides are going to have to be kicked out of the PL, costing them huge amounts of money and the other 12 face losing £10m or so a year to help fund the EFL. Persuading enough of these clubs to vote for that will be difficult.

 

[BaZ87]

But this appears to be sowing the seeds from stopping that happening as well. Why should 6/9 teams have control of who owns another club? If Tim Cook decides he wants to buy Bristol City and plough billions in to them, what right do we have to veto that? Absolutely none.

The more I think about this the more disgusting I think it is.

Something like that would be unenforceable and is a bit of a nonsense line thrown into the article. The PL right now can block a takeover if it wishes but they cannot do it without good reason and are subject to legal challenges, including to the CAS. That would be exactly the same under any new proposal. These clubs can set the rules but they've got to be reasonable because they'll just be challenged and beaten in the courts.

Nothing that's currently being proposed in the article is necessarily bad imo. The biggest clubs will find a way to fit in the expanded CL if they want to, they'll just drop out of the FA Cup or play weakened sides in it or just carry even bigger, stronger squads. The League Cup is going one way or another and I'm not sure anybody cares about the community shield. The question is, is providing the financial support for the EFL more important than a 20 team PL and is the risk of the big 6 making more changes in the future too great?

 

[BaZ87]

It would be the end of a competitive league forever.

Can you explain this point in more detail please. How would staying as we are make the League any more competitive?

The top sides want control, no doubt about that but arguments about competitiveness of the League? The top sides already generate 100s of milions more than the other sides, this will make no difference to the competitiveness of the League. Any extra CL money for the big clubs is coming regardless of these plans.

 

[BaZ87]

The top sides having a veto on any takeover on another club takes away any competition, say jeff bezos wants to plough a billion pounds into Leeds the owners of Liverpool and Manchester United ain’t going to allow that to go through

That's complete nonsense, they couldn't do that. The rules would be fundamentally no different to now - the PL cannot just block a takeover for a laugh, they can only do so if there's any sort of criminal activity involved and or the buyer cannot provide proof of funds. That would be exactly the same now, the only difference would be rather than the PL board making that decision, the decision would lie with 6 of the 9 clubs. They cannot abuse this though as they would be challenged and beaten in courts. This is the whole point for having a CAS, so that sporting bodies/leagues cannot just be dictators and make up any old rules.

 

[BaZ87]

Right so you only want to believe one part of the article that suits and not the other bits written?

No, I'm just not stupid. Under these proposals would these clubs be able to block a takeover? Yes but so can the PL right now. The reality is that unless there are genuine, valid reasons for blocking it then they won't because they can and will be challenged and beaten in courts. They're not going to block a takeover that they know will be challenged through CAS and be beaten.

 

[BaZ87]

Have you just copied an entire article Woppy?

Unless they had thought about it, why even have it in their proposal? There are a lot of good ideas but taking control away from the Premier League shouldn't happen.

It's not in the proposal. What's in the proposal is that these clubs would takeover all decision making from the current PL board & 14 club votes - that is just one of the decisions that they'll then be making, just like what currently gets made.

 

[BaZ87]

Read the top of my post “whole article” because it’s behind a paywall

Put it in quotes next time, it makes it much easier to read.

 

[BaZ87]

It's probably worth noting that these sorts of transformations rarely happen in their original form. As things stand it's very difficult to see this passing a PL vote - they're not just asking 2 of the 14 sides outside the big 6 to give up their place in the PL but also all say in future decisions. For this to pass compromises and guarantees will have to be put in place that will protect the interests of the other sides.

The same compromises and guarantees had to be put in place before the PL was formed and more recently and in not quite as big news, compromises and guarantees had to be put in place regarding the split in overseas TV rights. 18-24 months before the overseas rights split changed the top sides put forward their view that they wanted these to be sold club by club, in the end a compromise was reached where the current existing value was split evenly but any increase in the overseas rights was split based on League position.

Even one of the most respected journalists can see it’s a blatant power grab from LFC/MUFC
https://twitter.com/henrywinter/status/1315273911454633984

I don't think anybody has or will dispute this point. I think the entire proposal is very clear - we'll give you more money but we want more control moving forwards. That's the deal.

The question is, what's more valuable, the financial support for the EFL (and remember that these proposals reportedly date back 3 years) that provides then with the finances so that they're not playing russian roulette with their survival or a 20 team PL and equal voting rights?

 

[BaZ87]

The League cup problem is solved by excluding premium league teams, simple as that......The killer blow is the £250m bribe to the EFL

The League Cup without PL teams has no value at all. Sky aren't paying to televise the second string of two League 1 sides - and people need to recognise that it's not just the PL sides that don't take the League Cup seriously, even EFL sides are putting out weakened teams. There's no value in keeping the League Cup regardless of this proposal and it's very possible that this is the last season of it anyway.

As for the so called bribe. The £250m is a one time thing to get over the covid losses, the game changer is the massively increased payments to the EFL moving forwards. At the moment the difference in revenue between the PL and EFL is absolutely massive and this results in EFL teams playing russian roulette, overspending to chase promotion. This creates a vicious cycle of more clubs spending more to remain competitive, continuously pushing the limits of what they can spend and results in those that fail to reach the promise land (and haven't got a rich owner) going bust. The only way to stop this is to reduce the difference in revenue between the Leagues.

Your fairy tale idea of the biggest clubs just handing over this money with nothing in return is not going to happen. There has to be something in it for them and their price is the midweek calendar being cleared for them and that happens by having a smaller PL and no League Cup.

The whole voting thing could very well be in there as a shock tactic and something they'll concede on to get the other things but this is ultimately the EFL/Top 6's opening negotiation.

 

[BaZ87]

That is the problem, it's a couple of clubs dressing up something that isn't really to help anyone else, it's to help themselves. They don't care about the EFL. They don't care about the league so long as they get their champs league monies and hopefully a bit more of it.

The best way for them to do that is to get their control and they're bribing 90% of the other clubs.

They don't care, just like the EFL clubs don't care about the top 6 PL sides. They're both using each other for their own gain, like pretty much every commercial agreement ever. It's a mutually beneficial agreement.

People are incredibly naive if they believe that any agreement can happen without some give and take. We can stick our heads in the sand and be outraged by these plans but this won't just go away. The reality is that the EFL will slowly eat itself without a radical change to the distribution of money. EFL clubs haven't just started going into administration because of covid, it's been happening for years and the biggest reason is the gap in revenue between the PL and the rest.

Hypothetically, providing there were guarantees put in place that detailed what these clubs could and couldn't do (which at least 14 PL sides would need to agree to) and the FA kept their right to veto would this proposal really be a bad thing? Obviously supporters of a handful of PL clubs that now face a greater prospect of relegation might not like but from an overall football point of view? The survival and sustainability of the EFL is a fair trade off for the sake of 2 PL sides and the League Cup.

Just goes to show that the “top few clubs” have way too much input into how the PL is ran.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...United-allowed-vet-league-CEO-candidates.html

I wrote about this ages ago and it adds some perspective to the control and competitiveness arguement. The biggest clubs already call the shots and are out on their own from the rest of the League. This proposal isn't going to change a great deal on either front.

Plans for the way overseas tv rights would be split were revealed a few years ago and everybody was outraged but at least 14 clubs still voted for a compromise agreement. Why? Because every club in the League knows that the vast majority of TV revenue is generated by just a handful of clubs and you either agree to pay them more or they will break away. Now you and other football supporters might flippantly say good riddance but Mike Ashley won't. He's got a £300m asset generating £150-200m in revenue and the moment they're not associated with Liverpool and Man Utd those numbers are cut in half.

 

[BaZ87]

So that gives Liverpool and Manchester United the right to then weight the league in their favour so they can stay at the top without having to put any effort stay there? And hamstring every other team from challenging you?

What's being weighted in their favour and how will these proposed changes weight things in their favour.

They are not proposing any greater share of TV money for themselves if that's what you think and the CL revenue is there and will continue to grow regardless of these proposals. What they want is a cleaner calendar rather than them just fielding 2nd strings in Cup competitions.

The only downside, apart from the 2 clubs that drop out of the PL, is what they might try to change in the future but as I mentioned above this is where the compromises come into play. Maybe the control/voting thing is just a shock tactic and they'll concede it or maybe some guarantees are put into place that prevent certain things being changed and or the FA have a controlling vote to safeguard the rest of the League.

If I were to guess, the top sides probably aren't expecting to get control and would be happy to walk away with an 18 team PL.

 

[BaZ87]

how the so called big 6 can guarantee their places for European football every year.

Where's this come from?

 

[BaZ87]

Hmm, feels like a potential problem further down the line if one of those clubs gets relegated.... West Ham aren't exactly stable. So say they go down yet are still considered to be one of the clubs making decisions for a league they aren't even in. If they get kicked out of the boys club, who takes their place? Then if West Ham come back up are they back in?

All seems very elitist to me.

Presumably if this came into play then it wouldn't be as simple as x clubs have a special vote but the 9 longest serving clubs. So if West Ham get relegated then the next longest serving PL club would take their place.

People are getting too caught up with this voting thing. Its the one part of the proposal that I think is least likely to happen and or is the easiest to control. Just like when the PL was formed, before doing so a list of guarantees were put in place to stop the PL from just doing as it pleases. This could still happen and the FA could still keep their right to veto anything they weren't happy with.

The main part of this proposal is cutting the PL to 18 clubs and using the TV income saved from having 2 less sides to prop up the EFL. The rest can be argued about and a compromise found on.

 

[BaZ87]

....I disagree with Baz that if the status quo was to continue the "big six" would remain, no longer can Man Utd or Chelsea have their choice of any English player as with years gone by. Joe Cole, Lampard, Ferdinand, Carrick etc....

Firstly on your point regarding TV revenue splits, they're not proposing splitting the revenue any differently. And as I've mentioned several times, this voting rights thing could quite possibly be nothing more than a negotiating tactic and people really need to stop getting hung up about it. This proposal in its current form will not get 14 votes to pass. The only way it could ever pass would be with changes - the most likely being that the change in the voting idea has to be ditched altogether. Even if they were to change from a 14 vote majority to just 9 clubs getting a vote, the only way that would ever be agreed on would be with huge guarantees on what could happen moving forwards - for example the rest of the League would want a watertight assurance that the split on TV money wouldn't change.

As for the big 6 not remaining as the big 6, come back in 2 years and see who are considered the biggest sides in the League. TV money helps the smallest clubs hold onto their players for longer but ultimately if the biggest sides want them they'll get them. European money, gate receipts and in particular commercial revenue still creates a huge gulf in finances between the top 6 and the rest of the League and you'll need a miracle to consistently break into the top 6, or huge outside investment..

That's the thing, without the voting element what benefit is there to the big clubs and would this proposal even be a thing? I doubt it. There are so many positives but if the big clubs don't have control they won't be interested.

I completely disagree. What these sides want the most is the calendar cleared to make room for an expanded CL, more opportunities for longer pre-season tours and the possibility of a bigger FIFA Club World Cup.

The more I think about it the more I think this voting thing is just a shock tactic. If they go in asking for the world, if they just get half of what the want then it ends up looking like a fair deal. Whenever the top 6 want something, they always go in hard and end up with a compromise. I've mentioned it several times in this thread, look at the overseas TV money. When it was first raised the idea was sides should be able to sell their own rights - that was never going to be agreed on by 14 clubs because 99% of overseas revenue is paid for the biggest few clubs. In the end they agreed on splitting the value of the old agreement but anything above that was paid by League position.

edit: what's interesting from the replies on here (and twitter) is the only objections are coming from a Premier League pov. What about the EFL? Where's the alternative plans to help them? The government won't do it. Steve Parish (Crystal Palace owner) basically said they won't do it. Can anybody see Mike Ashley or the owner of any other non top 6 PL side willingly putting their hands in their pocket without anything in return?

 

[BaZ87]

But the new voting rights give them the power to amend the TV deal in the future, they want to keep the league competitive enough so people tune in but not enough so they don't lose the CL money.

I remember when it used to be a top 4 and Newcastle where sniffing round, I don't think your top six positions are as nailed as on you like to think. A competent manager makes a huge difference, a couple of years of poor recruitment and you could easily end up mid table, Roy Hodgson...

Just out of curiosity when do you think Chelsea become a big club? Man city? Spurs?

They couldn't if there were written guarantees put in place before this transformation happened. As I've said, this will not pass in it's current form - it's an opening negotiation from these clubs. They will know that this power/control thing will shock people, they will also know that it's nigh on impossible to persuade 14 PL clubs to agree to it. They've gone in high and expect to be negotiated down.

I suspect that they'd happily walk away with just getting an 18 club PL but maybe they will get slightly more control but they won't get total control. The other clubs won't vote for it. The best they can hope for is they get more say on very certain points but that there are absolute, rock solid guarantees put in place on things like the distribution of TV revenue.

and if the Big 6 get say on who can buy a club, then what? Or if they can decide how much revenue sponsorship can be worth to allow themselves to strike much bigger deals off the back of their already sucessful brands?

What happens if the big 6 decide the from next year, the league cup only applies to those outside the top 6 - so they can have a much quieter run up to xmas and therefore helping themselves stay in the top 6?

It should always be about the collective voice of the entire league - not just the boys on top.

I might have to write to Sam Wallace and call him a ****. The line about vetoing takeoevers is a red herring. The PL can already veto a takeover, what is being proposed is that these 9 clubs would takeover all decision making instead of having a 1 vote per club. Just like the current system, they couldn't just block a takeover because they felt like it or didn't want rich competition. There would have to be legal reasons why - for example there might be a criminal element involved, they cannot prove they have funds etc.

See above regarding the 2nd points. This won't be agreed unless there are guarantees put in place over what they can and can't do and that would need to be approved by at least 14 clubs.

On your final comment, do you want 100% equality? Should each club then be allowed to negotiate all their own tv deals? You can't have your cake and eat it. Newcastle, like the vast majority of clubs are only making the money they make because of Liverpool and Utd. A certain amount of give and take has to happen.

edit: Ben Rumsby has confirmed that under these proposals the FA would retain their "golden share" which would enable them to veto anything they didn't like, which would stop the top sides going rogue.

 

[BaZ87]

Any clubs other than the 'big 6' would be absolutely insane to support this in it's current format.

...and why it won't pass. The only way this could pass would be if there were written guarantees on things like TV money etc but even then it's unlikely.

Let's be 100% fair here - if it's not for "the other clubs making money off the backs of the great Liverpool and Man United" there would be no league and no where near the amount of revenue available to these clubs.

My point for the the collective voice is that if a decicion that effects the whole league should be decided by the whole league. So yes, if clubs want to decide their own TV rights and collectively come to an agreement - then that's fair (even if it does mess things up further IMO). Turning that on it's head - there's nothing to stop the big 6 (who happen to have the largest fan bases) deciding in two years time or whatever arbatory limit they'll put when negotiating with the PL and EFL then going "time for our own deals boys!" and voting it through.

Honestly a lot of this could be fixed by putting spending / wage caps on the playing squads. It would cause the league to be more competative as the big talent would have to be spread around (because you can't have all the best players undera cap - unless the players wanted less pay to play), players have more reasonable wages etc etc

If the current plans were just approved with no changes, yes there's nothing stopping them doing that but it won't happen. The other clubs won't vote for it.

As for 'without the other clubs there would be no league'. Not that I'm supportive of it but who is to say who these other clubs could be? I'm just reading an Athletic article and one of the points raised is if the other 14 clubs don't give the top clubs what they want, why don't these top clubs breakaway and rejoin with the EFL? All the TV money will just move with them. Again, I'm not suggesting this idea but you have to accept the reality that a handful of clubs are what has driven the PL's success, the rest are just there to make up the numbers.

I think the big problem everyone has with this deal is that it is creating a bias for certain clubs based on a specific time period. As I said Man City, Spurs, Chelsea, have only recently become "big clubs", anything that cements their position is anti-competitive.

This is true but it's exactly the same as when the PL was formed. Clubs that just so happened to be at the top then benefitted.

 

[BaZ87]

And what’s to stop the “ so called big6” if all this goes though going back the the FA a few years down the line and saying they want full control with no FA “golden share” or they are walking away from the league to form a European super league. If history and life teaches us one thing it’s the rich and powerful always want more riches and power

You're always confusing the life out of me woppy. What's to stop them? The FA. That's the entire point of the FA having their golden share. The FA can veto anything the PL decides. They can do this now and reportedly, they'll keep it under the current proposals.

The current proposals, in their existing form, will not pass though and we're wasting time discussing them. The top 6 are looking for a watered down compromise and I suspect the main aim is simply cutting the league down to 18 teams. So the question we should be discussing is, is cutting the PL to 18 teams a fair trade off for pumping an extra hundreds of millions per year into the EFL?

 

[BaZ87]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point - I personally love the variety the league contains and that no game is an easy win and it's terribly elitist to think that only a handful of clubs are more deserving than others.

that being said I'm sure we'd both have different opinions on this if our positions were swapped.

I'm not sure what we're agreeing to disagree on? I'm not sure I've expressed my personal preference about any shake up of the League in this thread, I've simply commented on very specific points that people have made which have not been accurate or simply contradictory. Comments about competitive advantage and this crazy point about them blocking takeovers are misguided or simply nonsense. Without massive outside investment the top 4-6 is all but a closed shop already - they've even made outside investment as hard as possible with FFP (something I disagree with btw). This reform isn't going to make much if any difference to the competitiveness of the League. And the thing about blocking takeovers is pure nonsense.

You then made a comment about equal rights etc. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say to the big boys, we want to have equal say but also we want you to give us a chunk of your money too

As in my reply to woppy below, if you want a truly fair League then you've got to scrap relegation. Until then you will not convince a privately owned club to fully share it's revenue with everybody else. You can't expect them to give all that away and still face great risks.

Personally yes it is a fair trade(and yes I would still feel that way if Newcastle were in 17th place the year it came into force) but you and me both know the well being of the EFL and its clubs is the last thing on the “big6’s” mind, this is an opportunistic power grab nothing more nothing less, and your deluded and blinkered if you think otherwise.

Yes, I know they don't care about the EFL just like the EFL don't care about them. If this ends with an 18 team PL, funding for the EFL and no massively unfair changes to the way voting and decision making is made in the PL then we will have ended up with a very good deal imo. I don't care what the motives are, the outcome is more important.

As I said pure greed and that fact they are using the pandemic to try and spin it as they are looking out for the EFL makes it even worse
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1315601698782617600?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1315601698782617600|twgr^share_3&ref_url=https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=104288.11450

And there's the key point in the highlighted quote from Henry - relegation. I've previously commented that the ideal solution would be a genuine revenue sharing model however that only works if the League becomes a closed shop with no relegation and promotion.