Poll: Premier League Shake-Up?

PL/EFL changes of structure

  • 18 Team PL, all the power to the top 6 and save the EFL

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • 18 Team PL, little or no more power to the top 6 and save the EFL

    Votes: 56 78.9%

  • 20 Team PL and the EFL dies.

    Votes: 14 19.7%
  • Total voters
    71
Azza said:
Rick Parry opened his mouth already.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-interview-new-proposals-will-finally-bridge/



The £££ to the FA and EFL will make this happen. They won't care about anything else.
Click to expand...
Whole article, the scouse ***** just needs to **** off. It’s just pure greed and the fact they no longer want any competition from any new teams with rich owners.
He was the chief executive of the Premier League when its breakaway from the Football League reshaped English football in the early 1990s, and now Rick Parry is adamant that fundamental change is necessary again to save the professional game gripped by the coronavirus crisis.

Speaking exclusively to The Telegraph, Parry, now chairman of the Football League (EFL), said that new changes proposed in a radical document authored and endorsed Liverpool and Manchester United were “as big as the formation of the Premier League”.

The proposals would, Parry said, finally bridge the financial gap between the Premier League and the Championship and discourage reckless spending by clubs seeking promotion. He believes the proposals will also save the EFL from the looming financial oblivion that is being hastened by the Covid crisis.

On the other side of the fence now from the Premier League, Parry has been working on a plan with Liverpool and United for the last three years - even before he took up his role at the EFL. His ambition is to close what he sees as the “unbridgeable gap” between the Premier League and the EFL but he also knows that in order to do so concessions will have to be offered to the game’s most powerful clubs.

A former chief executive of Liverpool, Parry says that his 72 EFL clubs will only have a future under these new plans and that many of them who have been sounded out support them wholeheartedly.

Proposals would see the Premier League reduce to 18 teams

The details, revealed today by The Telegraph, are startling. A £250 million bailout of the EFL and 25 per cent of all annual Premier League future revenues paid to the EFL. A £100 million one-off gift to the Football Association. A reduction of the number of top-flight clubs from 20 to 18. Sweeping changes to the governance of the Premier League that would see power concentrated in the longest-serving, and biggest clubs. Potentially the end of the League Cup. Changes to the three-up, three down promotion and relegation structure.

Parry said that the changes were crucial for the long-term health of the professional game in England and would have been so even without the pandemic that has prevented clubs from having paying fans in stadiums. He has the backing of the owners of both Liverpool and United. Parry will be the public face of the new proposals that will face fierce competition from many quarters – especially the Premier League itself and the 14 clubs outside the so-called big six.

For United and Liverpool, the pay-off is not a greater share of the revenue from the Premier League’s television deal – they are insistent that will not happen. Instead they want the power, along with the other members of the elite - Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur – to shape the rules of the league and also to have more matchdays to compete in a potentially expanded Champions League.

For United and Liverpool, the pay-off is not a greater share of the revenue from the Premier League’s television deal

Under the new rules the nine longest-serving clubs in the division would have huge powers. With just a two-thirds majority, they could remove the Premier League chief executive, change regulations governing cost controls and approve television rights contracts. They could change the distribution model of sponsorship and commercial rights and even the rules of the competition. Remarkably they would also be able to block new owners from buying clubs.

Parry said: “The fact that our two greatest clubs are showing leadership at a time when the game is crying out for it is fantastic. For me that’s a great part of the story. We should be looking at our great clubs at times like this and they should be stepping up to the plate. They are. Clearly I have had an input because all of this will come as something as a surprise to our clubs [in the EFL]. I am hoping they will be receptive but it is subject to their approval.”

“For me this addresses the three biggest challenges the EFL faces. This started pre-Covid – it addressed the gulf between top and bottom and the long-term survival of our smaller clubs. You cannot do this without a major rethink. It is as big as the formation of the Premier League. It is a coming-together and clearly it’s a great story for all of our 72 [EFL] clubs.”

On the question of what leverage the likes of Liverpool and United would have to force change, Parry said they would be “bitterly disappointed” if the proposals were rejected. He maintained that the new proposals had to be implemented swiftly to save those EFL clubs who were on the financial precipice without gate receipts. He added that the “toing and froing and nickel and dimeing” with the Premier League had not moved the EFL clubs any closer to the bailout they needed.

Parry said: “They [Liverpool and United] are not making threats about European super leagues as far as I know. In the event it doesn’t happen and they are bitterly disappointed then as to what might then happen anybody can speculate. At the moment it is presented for what it is a really genuinely bold plan for the future of English football.

“Yes, there are bits that people won’t like. All your points about the 14 [other clubs] and about competitive balance are absolutely valid. What do we do? Leave it exactly as it is and allow the smaller clubs to wither? Recognise we have an enormous gap, recognise we have a structure that depends [in the EFL] on owner funding? 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, then we are up for it.”

Parry said that the proposals, chiefly authored by Liverpool’s American ownership group Fenway Sports, based in Boston, were a work in progress. They are already on their 17th draft. He said that as things stand the League Cup, a cornerstone of the EFL, will be abolished but that there had been some discussion about keeping it – albeit without the participation of clubs in Europe.

The likelihood is that there will be huge changes by Uefa or others to the Champions League and Europa League after 2024 when current broadcast contracts expire. A radical expansion is being pushed by leading European clubs, led by the Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli, and the Premier League’s top clubs want more matchdays free for greater participation in Europe.

Parry said: “Who knows what changes will be to European competition after 2024 and obviously we are anticipating there will be a major shift in games. We are realistic. We know that things have to give. We know that second domestic cup competitions [League Cup] are an anathema to Uefa. It’s only us and France [who have one] and we know theirs is going. Even in the last few days clubs in the big six are ‘Saying why are you getting rid of it [the League Cup]? If you know clubs in Europe aren’t going to take part then why shouldn’t we keep it?’”

The current model in the EFL is unsustainable, according to Parry

The current model in the EFL is unsustainable, Parry says, with owners funding £380 million from their own pocket in the Championship alone last season, at an average of £16 million a club. That total of owner funding rises to £440 million throughout the totality of the EFL. The parachute payments, he says, which came in under his watch at the Premier League are no longer sustainable and distort competition. Last season parachute payments made up 30 per cent of the total turnover of the Championship despite being paid to just seven clubs.

As EFL chairman, Parry wants an end to the huge difference in earnings between clubs relegated back to the Championship, and the beneficiaries of parachute payments, and those who are already there subsisting on much more meagre resources. “The fact that two seasons ago you have Huddersfield earning £97 million and Leeds £8 million – it’s not bridgeable,” Parry said. “You have heard my views on parachute payments and the massive distorting impact they have [to a Parliamentary select group hearing]. [Owning a Championship club] is the most expensive lottery ticket on the planet. It’s nonsensical. It can’t be right.

“That is not the right structure going forwards. Why do you need parachute payments, you only need them because of the size of the gap [between the Premier League and the Championship] … it’s a total distortion.”

Asked what the reaction of Liverpool and United might be to a rejection of their proposals, Parry said: “I would phrase it diplomatically in that, ‘Isn’t this the thing that’s going to prevent them from doing that [leaving the Premier League] and make it more likely they are committed to the future of English football?’ They have thrown their lot in with a very bold plan to save the English pyramid.”

He said that the era in which all Premier League clubs had one-vote and a majority of 14 was needed for any major rule changes had served the league “brilliantly” but that change was now required. He said Liverpool and Manchester United had been particularly frustrated that the interim rule to allow five substitutes last season had been voted down for this season. Premier League clubs voted 11-9 against it. The rest of Uefa had adopted it permanently.

Parry said: “[Under these proposals] They [big clubs] have more space and the calendar isn’t that cluttered. That is a major benefit for them. There are governance changes in there where they want a greater say. They are frustrated that they get outvoted ... how can Huddersfield have the same vote as Man United? How can Blackpool come up and abuse their one stay in the Premier League [and yet] have the same vote as Man United and Liverpool.”

The big losers will undoubtedly be those clubs outside the big six of the Premier League who will have two fewer places and less revenue. Persuading them will be the greatest challenge facing Parry as well as Liverpool and United. Parry claims that those clubs are in an “arms race” with one another for the same players. He says the 14 spend more collectively on salaries than the total wage bills of either the Bundesliga, Spain’s Liga or Italy’s Serie A.


Asked whether the new proposals would affect the competitiveness of those 14 clubs, Parry argued they could assemble the same squads on a lower budget. “It’s all about the supply of money,” he said. “The money goes to the players and less money will go to the same group of players. I don’t think, for example, Brighton’s squad will be any different. It means Brighton’s players will be earning a bit less.

“I don’t have an issue with our top clubs being successful in Europe and hiring the best players in the world because they generate the revenues. To have them winning Champions Leagues and bringing in the best talent on the planet is best for English football and great for media values. We want them competing with Real Madrid and others. There is no problem at all with that. The challenge we have is the imbalance between frankly the 14 and our clubs [in the EFL].”

Parry said that under the new proposals, the Premier League would continue to run the top division but taking charge of all negotiations for television rights for the Football League as well as its own. From that total, 25 per cent would go to the EFL. Currently the 14 Premier League clubs outside the top six are in receipt of what Parry estimates is 11 times the television revenue of the 24 Championship clubs. They earn around £8 million each with £5 million of that a solidarity payment from the Premier League. “How is that right? How is that fair?” Parry said.

“This isn’t about throwing money at player wages,” he said, “it is absolutely about making all of our clubs sustainable. This is a plan for the next 25 years. A fundamental reset. The thing that has to shine through is the passion that Liverpool and Manchester United have shown for preserving the pyramid and the relevance if Leagues One and League Two is for the most rewarding aspect of all of this.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you just copied an entire article Woppy?
Pigeon_Killer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Have you just copied an entire article Woppy?

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.
Click to expand...
Read the top of my post “whole article” because it’s behind a paywall
 
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.
woppy101 said:
Even one of the most respected journalists can see it’s a blatant power grab from LFC/MUFC
https://twitter.com/henrywinter/status/1315273911454633984
Click to expand...
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?
 
My problem with this is that it effectively stops any other club becoming big.

Who can say as a garuntee that the smaller clubs e.g. Everton, villa, saints, leister etc won't ever become as big as Liverpool, utd,city etc

This sort of deal to me only makes it harder for them plus what's to say one of the current bit 6 falls on it's arse ? Will they lose the extra rights they gain from this type of deal.

I don't feel cup should just be disposed of either just get rid of the two legged tie have it all straight knock out
 
The League cup problem is solved by excluding premium league teams, simple as that.

9 clubs, of which 6 are permanent (because no team has ever been at the top and fallen from grace...spurs, Newcastle, villa etc) get to control all decisions including takeovers of other clubs, that's just protecting your own money making position and going for a power grab.

The killer blow is the £250m bribe to the EFL. If a team like man utd is concerned about the state of the EFL they could give away the money they wasted on useless signings instead. Chelsea have blown through that much in one window and are arguably one of the major causes with overinflated fees being paid to foreign talent rather than buying local and helping the lower leagues.

Just my 25,000,000,000 pence on it all.
 
WorTortle said:
The League cup problem is solved by excluding premium league teams, simple as that......The killer blow is the £250m bribe to the EFL
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The PL brand was created and is driven by these 'top clubs' so it's inevitable they're going to want and have more influence.
 
WorTortle said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

woppy101 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Robbo said:
The PL brand was created and is driven by these 'top clubs' so it's inevitable they're going to want and have more influence.
Click to expand...
BaZ87 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
woppy101 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom