I didnt ask before but do you have proof its specifically the bottom 14, also someone who is desperate would snap up any offer, l1 and l2 wouldnt have got much more than 50m on the combined 250m offer anyway, we know that most of it would have gone to the championship.
Poll: Premier League Shake-Up?
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,193
If true, why would the other 14 clubs want to help the EFL, when Parry was colluding with the so called big 6 behind their backs?
They are under no obligation.
They are under no obligation.
As Azza pointed out, it only requires 14 votes for a PL motion to be passed so if those 14 clubs wanted to offer the EFL a proper package they could have. You then have the off the record briefs to journalists - I linked a podcast which Matt Slater talks about this very issue. And then finally we know that at least 3 of the top 6 were working on completely different, far more beneficial plans to the EFL, than what has been offered - it certainly wouldn't make sense for these clubs to lead the PL's proposals when working on an alternative.
This obviously ignores the fact that they didn't want to help and offered an even worse package prior to this news breaking.
edit: It's actually incredible that people are trying to pretend that any PL club wants to help the EFL. Steve Parish wrote an article detailing why the PL shouldn't have to help long before any proposals were leaked. It's not a secret. The bottom of the PL treat the EFL the same way the top of the PL treats the bottom of the PL.
Confirmation now that the EFL have indeed rejected the PL's conditional offer. Lots of journo's being briefed that the offer was "disgraceful", "derisory" and "outrageous". I think it's about time those small 14 clubs just ****ed off and started their own European Conference League!
I hope I'm doing this right, I'm not well practised at hypocritical faux outrage.
I hope I'm doing this right, I'm not well practised at hypocritical faux outrage.
I know it only requires 14 clubs, but I just want to know if it is those 14 clubs or you just speculating.
Its all very well thinking because the big 6 were ok with big picture it meant they also ok with a bigger bailout, it is not that simple, big picture would have gave the big 6 lots more money meaning that bailout wouldnt make them out of pocket, they were willing to vote for a bailout which would have been burdened by the other 14.
Now its been rejected, one must wonder what they playing at, you dont negotiate bailout's this isnt a contract its a bailout. Both sets of clubs all just trying to get as money as possible for themselves, is greed in all 4 divisions.
I dont think anyone is pretending the EPL want to help the EFL, of course they dont, but to think anyone thought big picture was even an ok idea is hard to believe, the fact the lower 3 tiers were willing to sign away historical competitions, and accept the big 6 controlling all 4 divisions for some money shows what they really cared about, and the sooner that ex liverpool chairman is not running the efl the better. Its as if he is an agent there planted by the big 6.
BazBZ it probably would have played out like this.
1 - Big picture ratified.
2 - B Teams entered into championship with threat of removal of 25% if no compliance.
3 - Most of 25% funding going into B teams as they now part of EFL.
4 - EPL reduced further to 16 teams.
5 - FA cup cancelled.
6 - EFL clubs mandated to sell players for no more than a set fee, or they lose TV money.
7 - EPL closed shop.
You need to look at the bigger picture, the big 6 have played you for a fool. This would have left the big 6 effectively controlling all 4 divisions. Even fans of the big 6 seen it for what it is. The Everton chairman is the one who called the meeting to put it to bed, and Everton have never been relegated from the EPL.
Its all very well thinking because the big 6 were ok with big picture it meant they also ok with a bigger bailout, it is not that simple, big picture would have gave the big 6 lots more money meaning that bailout wouldnt make them out of pocket, they were willing to vote for a bailout which would have been burdened by the other 14.
Now its been rejected, one must wonder what they playing at, you dont negotiate bailout's this isnt a contract its a bailout. Both sets of clubs all just trying to get as money as possible for themselves, is greed in all 4 divisions.
I dont think anyone is pretending the EPL want to help the EFL, of course they dont, but to think anyone thought big picture was even an ok idea is hard to believe, the fact the lower 3 tiers were willing to sign away historical competitions, and accept the big 6 controlling all 4 divisions for some money shows what they really cared about, and the sooner that ex liverpool chairman is not running the efl the better. Its as if he is an agent there planted by the big 6.
BazBZ it probably would have played out like this.
1 - Big picture ratified.
2 - B Teams entered into championship with threat of removal of 25% if no compliance.
3 - Most of 25% funding going into B teams as they now part of EFL.
4 - EPL reduced further to 16 teams.
5 - FA cup cancelled.
6 - EFL clubs mandated to sell players for no more than a set fee, or they lose TV money.
7 - EPL closed shop.
You need to look at the bigger picture, the big 6 have played you for a fool. This would have left the big 6 effectively controlling all 4 divisions. Even fans of the big 6 seen it for what it is. The Everton chairman is the one who called the meeting to put it to bed, and Everton have never been relegated from the EPL.
Last edited:
Firstly, I'm being intentionally mischievous because there is this ridiculous idea that only the top 6 clubs are greedy.
Look at the both deals, project big picture and this PL offer to the EFL, and you will see a number of similarities between them - unfortunately just the bad points though, none of the good points. In fact you could almost just swap "big 6 & small 14" with "small 14 & championship".
In Project Big Picture the top 6 were happy to fund the whole of the EFL (as they are no threat to them) while offering no extra money to the remaining 14 PL sides and also taking control of the League. The accusation being that they were looking to secure their position at the top even further. This current PL deal offers funds to League 1 & 2 sides (who are no threat to the bottom of the PL) while offering no extra money to the Championship and also taking more control of the EFL. Which sides in the PL are benefiting from starving the Championship and taking more control of the EFL? Are Liverpool & Utd worrying about your Derby's of this world? Of course not but the clubs in danger of relegation sure are. A weaker Championship benefits one group of clubs and that is the group of PL sides that are at risk of relegation. A relegated PL side, with their huge parachute payment, dropping into a Championship full of sides on life support and under strict regulations, have a far greater chance of bouncing straight back.
Of course none of the PL sides want to give money to the EFL but the bottom PL sides have far more to gain from starving the Championship than the top PL sides have and this is why they are not going to give the EFL the deal they need.
You ignored what I wrote, you just said they were happy to fund the EFL "after" I explained they wouldnt be paying a penny.
Also no one has said only the top 6 are greedy.
You are looking at it one way only. "money", you clearly dont care about a smaller EPL, losing the league cup and community shield, B teams, and any future dictatorship, you just want that £££. Thankfully for the integrity of English football the rest of the EPL blocked that nonsense.
Spurs and Arsenal backed it because payments would be sent to them for their stadium developments, likewise Liverpool.
Manchester United and Liverpool were behind it due to their American owners, ask any Manchester United fan and they dont have good things to say about the Glaziers.
Manchester City seen it as a way to get the B teams integrated so backed it.
The current international tv sales were to be removed from the EPL tv pool this immediately shrinks it by about 40%. So you getting 25% of the last 60%.
Most of that 40% would be going to the big 6 clubs in redistribution, this effectively reimburses them for this 25%. With cream on top.
The bottom 14 were effectively asked to vote for a big 6 controlled league, lose their voting rights, 2 of them to be relegated, a 40% cut in money and another 25% of whats left.
On top of that the big 6 would need to approve any club takeovers. They really didnt like little Leicester winning the league (this idea was born a few months after our title win).
Yes it is about much more than some £ going into your club's bank account.
I would have absolutely no issue with a simple bailout, although given the recent attitude, I am not so warm about it as I was last week. I feel perhaps the EPL needs to vet all the finances of each club, and only compensate them for matchday losses, since they now going down the route of claiming 50m is derisory.
So dont assume they also not down voting the championship bailout, as the one they backed had them paying nothing, not an even distribution of burden across the 20 clubs.
Also no one has said only the top 6 are greedy.
You are looking at it one way only. "money", you clearly dont care about a smaller EPL, losing the league cup and community shield, B teams, and any future dictatorship, you just want that £££. Thankfully for the integrity of English football the rest of the EPL blocked that nonsense.
Spurs and Arsenal backed it because payments would be sent to them for their stadium developments, likewise Liverpool.
Manchester United and Liverpool were behind it due to their American owners, ask any Manchester United fan and they dont have good things to say about the Glaziers.
Manchester City seen it as a way to get the B teams integrated so backed it.
The current international tv sales were to be removed from the EPL tv pool this immediately shrinks it by about 40%. So you getting 25% of the last 60%.
Most of that 40% would be going to the big 6 clubs in redistribution, this effectively reimburses them for this 25%. With cream on top.
The bottom 14 were effectively asked to vote for a big 6 controlled league, lose their voting rights, 2 of them to be relegated, a 40% cut in money and another 25% of whats left.
On top of that the big 6 would need to approve any club takeovers. They really didnt like little Leicester winning the league (this idea was born a few months after our title win).
Yes it is about much more than some £ going into your club's bank account.
I would have absolutely no issue with a simple bailout, although given the recent attitude, I am not so warm about it as I was last week. I feel perhaps the EPL needs to vet all the finances of each club, and only compensate them for matchday losses, since they now going down the route of claiming 50m is derisory.
So dont assume they also not down voting the championship bailout, as the one they backed had them paying nothing, not an even distribution of burden across the 20 clubs.
Last edited:
The EFL would be funded by PL tv money - they wouldn't lose money compared to what they were earning but it is money that they generate so yes, they would be paying for it. The big 6 currently fund the entire PL too. Or are you going to suggest that the majority of the near £3bn per season in TV money isn't being paid for the rights to the big 6's games?
And look at the reaction in this thread. Where is all the rage and hysteria around the PL's offer to the EFL like there was to Project Big Picture?
As for your last part, if you read through my posts in this thread you'll see that I've repeatedly said the transfer of power to the big 6 is a bad thing. I am however fully supportive of he League Cup going & Community Shield going and cutting the PL to 18 sides with the funds saved from the 2 teams cut going to the EFL. I believe that is a fair compromise. I only briefly touched on it in this thread so I will forgive you for not acknowledging it but I have often said that my ideal solution would be a complete revenue sharing model with 51% fan ownership - the fan ownership part is a requirement because you'll never convince private owners to give up their money, as we're seeing now. It would appear that you, along with most small 14 club supporters that have commented in this thread are happy to rage at the big 6 not wanting to share with your clubs but have no issue with your own club doing the exact same thing to the EFL. That is what you call hypocrisy.
edit: and you did edit your post 5 times so you can forgive me if I didn't reply to every point - I didn't even see half of it until I refreshed the page after posting my reply.
The EPL rights are sold as a collective, until you straighten your head on this, you are completely of the path, the big 6 need the rest of the clubs to form a league. So no they are not funding the entire league. You seem to have some big love in with those clubs, which is your right, but when you try to paint a false picture blaming 14 clubs and saying the only way the EFL can be funded is with an 18 club league, I feel you are completely out of touch.
do you want another SPL, or Spanish division where its not even remotely competitive? There is a reason the EPL is the most popular league in the world.
Interestingly rumours are that Chelsea didnt back it.
do you want another SPL, or Spanish division where its not even remotely competitive? There is a reason the EPL is the most popular league in the world.
Interestingly rumours are that Chelsea didnt back it.
Last edited:
And you had the cheek to say I didn't reply to what you said. Again, what I want and what will happen are different things. Equally me commenting on the hypocrisy of the small 14 and their supporters doesn't therefore mean I support the ideas put forward by Liverpool.
Yes, the EPL rights are currently sold collectively however anybody with a tiny bit of sense knows that the bulk of the rights fees are driven by a small number of clubs. So yes, those clubs are funding the PL. Without these sides there would be no £3bn per year TV deal and this is why every few years we have a small battle within the PL as the big sides decide they want a bit more of the money - the smaller sides are outraged but always end up giving up a bit more because they know that if they don't then these sides will do another PL and form a new League without them. This is the reality whether you, me or anybody else likes it. Some people won't remember or realise but this is what lead to the PL - the biggest EFL sides wanted more money and control so broke away.
And to say I have some big love in with the big clubs when for over 10 years I've supported the idea of fan ownership, even committing to pay into a group looking to try to take back Liverpool from our previous owners, as well as regularly stating that I support Liverpool giving even more money way to smaller sides is quite odd. At the bottom of this post I will quote a post of mine from 9 years ago discussing this very point.
And how can you can say I'm painting a false picture of the other 14 sides? Steve Parish wrote an article in a national newspaper admitting that he doesn't think the PL should have to help the EFL out and the PL have now put forward two proposals to the EFL that do to them exactly what you're upset that Liverpool & Utd want to do to Leicester et al!!! Jesus Christ.
edit: and documents have already come out that showed Bruce Buck (Chelsea Chairman) was involved in the proposals for months.
Shared revenue like they have in the US and 51% fan ownership & rules on profitiability as they have in the Bundesliga =
I'm know it's not that simple but the principle would work.
I think I will call it here, but you believe in all the wrong things to be someone who is a fan of lower league football.
To those fans, things like the League cup is extra special, and the bigger the top division is the better as it allows more opportunity for smaller clubs to play at the top level. The way you just shrug it off as if its nothing to shrink it and scrap historic competitions makes no sense. You speaking with the mindset of a glory supporter who thinks football is all about the big 6 clubs and european fixtures.
We are clearly at odds with each other, so will just go round in circles, but I do feel good knowing that most people I have spoken to agree with me that the idea was complete nonsense.
To those fans, things like the League cup is extra special, and the bigger the top division is the better as it allows more opportunity for smaller clubs to play at the top level. The way you just shrug it off as if its nothing to shrink it and scrap historic competitions makes no sense. You speaking with the mindset of a glory supporter who thinks football is all about the big 6 clubs and european fixtures.
We are clearly at odds with each other, so will just go round in circles, but I do feel good knowing that most people I have spoken to agree with me that the idea was complete nonsense.
I'm really not sure we're at odds with each other as much as you think. In fact I believe 99% of supporters will agree on most things. Very few people want power to be handed to the top sides but I'm sure most don't want the PL as a whole, including the other 14 sides that you don't want to criticise, to put their foot on the throat of the Championship either. It's not as fashionable to say the latter though.
There is a lot of what was in Project Big Picture which is good - increased revenue for the EFL, cutting the gap between the Leagues, and more money reserved for stadium works, stopping sides from spending every penny on players and encouraging them to improve their facilities. We can want those points without wanting the bad points. I know this is an internet forum but we don't always have to be hysterical and say x is great or x is terrible. It is allowed to look at what's being proposed and to say x, y & z are good things but a, b & c aren't. But if all you're interested in is what is good for Leicester and not what is good for the EFL too then maybe not.
There is a lot of what was in Project Big Picture which is good - increased revenue for the EFL, cutting the gap between the Leagues, and more money reserved for stadium works, stopping sides from spending every penny on players and encouraging them to improve their facilities. We can want those points without wanting the bad points. I know this is an internet forum but we don't always have to be hysterical and say x is great or x is terrible. It is allowed to look at what's being proposed and to say x, y & z are good things but a, b & c aren't. But if all you're interested in is what is good for Leicester and not what is good for the EFL too then maybe not.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,938
- Location
- Surrey
The league cup is definitely a historic competition, and that is where it belongs. Not a single PL club cares about it and even most of the Championship clubs play weaker teams now. It's a laughing stock, I couldn't even tell you who won it in recent years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,193
If the Premier League teams don't want the LC, then let the EFL take it, along with the Europa spot for the winners. They'll soon change their tune
Now the EPL is back, will be interesting to see what the managers say about it all.
EFL sides don't put their first choice team out in it either. It's become a distraction for everybody and as soon as the PL sides leave it (and they will because we will soon have 10 PL sides in Europe) there is even less appeal to it. I suppose you could keep the Cup without the PL sides and instead just scrap the EFL trophy - it's essentially the same thing as scrapping the League Cup but with a little more prestige than the EFL trophy.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,720
- Location
- Welling, London
City have won it three years on a row, which shows you it’s now no more than a squad depth competition.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,193
As like I stated before, give the EFL winners one of the Europa spots
The FA Cup is THE historic competition, what's not to say that wouldn't be next on the list to be scrapped. Just like the League Cup, the Prem sides don't play their first team in the 3rd and 4th rounds either.
Re the League Cup, I don't think that will change anything tbh. When was the last time the League Cup was won by somebody outside the automatic CL/EL spots? Swansea in 2013? The Europa spot isn't a motivation for anybody, whether that be the top clubs or the smaller PL sides. It will just mean 1 less Europa spot and we have to remember that UEFA are introducing a 3rd European competition soon which will mean as many as 10 PL sides will be in Europe moving forwards.
As for the FA Cup, that's not going any time soon but who knows what the future holds. Who'd have thought we'd have a PL 40 years ago? And at some point in the future, who knows when, there absolutely will be a European Super League.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,720
- Location
- Welling, London
The FA cup will never ever go. It may be reformed and altered, but it will never go. It’s the worlds most historic national domestic trophy.