Poll: Premier League Shake-Up?

[mysticsniper]

It's just all greed, how the so called big 6 can guarantee their places for European football every year.

Bloody yanks, ruining the Premier League

 

[BaZ87]

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

Where's this come from?

 

[jokerguv]

It's just all greed, how the so called big 6 can guarantee their places for European football every year.

Maybe not guarantee but they could certainly make things difficult for lower clubs.

From what I could gather, apart from the philanthropy bits, they want powers to remove PL chief; change regulations on cost control, commercial rights, rules of the competition; and block any new owner from buying a club.

There's probably more to it than this but I find it hard to believe all these powers wouldn't be used to somehow maintain the "Big Club" status quo and manipulate PL to their advantage.

 

[alchal]

Would be easier for the 'top' six to go play in their own little sandbox and not have to play in any cup competitions,they wouldn't have to worry about too many games and no threat of relegation.

Rest of the league hopefully will be better off without them... hopefully take var with them as well!

 

[Ryan-3]

A lot of people talk about this as though it'll push Man Utd to the top with no effort. It's a bit of a structure shakeup, not a miracle.

However, whilst there are a number of aspects that are in the agreement that I do agree with, there are some that strike me as something more sinister being veiled as something less. I always thought that a restructure for fewer teams in each league would be a good thing (insert another tier, so each one is closer and more competitive), although I don't think fixture congestion is as much of an issue as you go to lower leagues? Either that or nobody reports it/moans about it.

 

[vanpeebles]

Total crooked corrupt mess, sickening. I used to love football, can't stand the sight of it now.

 

[Kill_Phil]

Complete power grab by the big boys; the sheer arrogance is unbelievable.

Im with @vanpeebles just fed up with football now.

 

[McBain]

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.

 

[the wopster]

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.

It’s just an opportunist ******** power grab by those clubs at the top to ensure they stay at the top no matter what

 

[FMF]

A very blatant power grab to secure themselves at the top of English football by giving themselves favourable conditions. Who's to say in a few years they dont like the TV deal in its current form and they decide they want a great % of the pie (from the EPL pot).

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.

The TV money is beginning to level the playing field albeit it has taken a few years for the mid table teams to catch-up. With good investment and a manager I believe it is possible to break the top 4. All of the top 6 are in one way or another in a precarious position. Liverpool have shown that good management under the current regime can create success on and off the field, I don't think any of the other "big six" can tick both criteria.

I'd love to know who came up with the Big Six.... Liverpool and Man Utd big clubs with a big history but the others....

Remember before the Premier League Everton and Villa had the most league titles behind Liverpool and Nottingham Forrest have won 2 European Cups, football did exist before 1990!

 

[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.

 

[robfosters]

Even as a fan of one of the big 6 who would benefit from this, I am totally against it. An awful power grab by a bunch of rich foreigners who can’t wait to get their hands on control of a lucrative product. Do we really want the future of the premier league dictated by people like the Glazers, Henry, Kroenke, the Arab mob at city, oligarchs like Abramovich etc. No thanks. Sooner this is kicked into touch the better.

 

[Pigeon_Killer]

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.

 

[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?

 

[FMF]

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..

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?

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?

 

[montymint]

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..

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.

 

[the wopster]

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.

Exactly this, what’s funny is some on here think the top clubs are doing it for the benefit of the rest of English football(are they ****), when the top clubs start pulling the strings behind the scenes to manipulate things, it’s to do one thing and one thing only, keep them at the top and not let anyone else play with their train set.

 

[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.

 

[Kenai]

The proposals also rewrite the Premier League’s 20-club democracy in favour of placing huge power in the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division. As things stand that is the big six, as well as Everton, Southampton and West Ham. Those nine clubs afforded “long-term shareholder status” would have unprecedented power, with the votes of just six of them required to make sweeping changes.

In real terms this is effectively handing control to the 'big 6'. Whereas now, if Southampton and West Ham decided they weren't in favour of something, they could lobby a few other clubs and drum up an opposition group and achieve the necessary 7 'against' votes. Needing 6 out of 9 instead simply means those 3 three 'other clubs' now only have their own vote and no ability to lobby additional support, so they'll realistically never be able to vote against something the 'big 6' want to pass. If those 6 want it, it gets passed.

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

 

[montymint]

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.

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