1. Mr Banks
  2. Main Forum
  3. 11-10-2020 12:03
From
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/10/11/world-exclusive-man-utd-liverpool-driving-project-big-picture/

PLEASE DELETE IF COPYRIGHT ISSUES

Manchester United and Liverpool are the driving force behind the biggest changes to English football in a generation and an extraordinary overhaul of the Premier League, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The two clubs have worked together on a radical set of proposals – called “Project Big Picture” - that will reshape the finances of the game. The Premier League, the most lucrative sports league in the world, would see a reduction to 18 teams, and controlling power in the hands of the biggest clubs.

In return for tearing up many of the rules that have governed the game since the Premier League’s inception in 1992 there will be £250 million rescue package to the Football League to see them through the Covid crisis.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal the details of the working document “Revitalisation” authored by Liverpool’s American ownership Fenway Sports Group with support from United. It anticipates the backing of the other members of the so-called big six, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur.



In a remarkable set of proposals, which will send shockwaves through the game, 25 per cent of the Premier League’s annual revenue will go to the EFL clubs with £250 million paid up front to see them through the current crisis. There would also be a gift of £100 million to sustain the Football Association.

However, there would be an abolition of the one-club, one-vote principle that has sustained the Premier League since its inception as well as the abolition of the threshold of 14 votes to pass any decision or regulation change.

Under the new proposals, the Community Shield would be abolished
Under the new proposals, the Community Shield would be abolished CREDIT: Shutterstock
Under the new proposals, the League Cup and the Community Shield would be abolished. There have been additional discussions that the League Cup would survive but without the participation of the clubs in Europe.

There would be two automatic promotion places for Championship clubs, but the third, fourth and fifth placed clubs would be in a play-off tournament with the 16th placed Premier League club.

The nine clubs who have been in the Premier League for the longest - which includes the big six - would dictate its running in every aspect and would be free to play more games in the expanded Champions League that is anticipated from the 2024-2025 season onwards.

As well as the Premier League dropping from 20 clubs to 18, there would be 24 in each of the Championship, League One and League Two making a total of 90.

The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry who has held talks with Liverpool’s principal owner, the American investor John W Henry, and shareholder and director Mike Gordon. In addition, Parry has spoken to the Glazer family, who own United.

The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry
The plan is supported by the EFL chairman Rick Parry CREDIT: AP
The talks began in 2017 but have been accelerated since the coronavirus pandemic has thrust football into the grip of crisis with no fans in stadiums until March at the earliest. Liverpool and United are prepared for a fierce debate over their proposals but they want them implemented as soon as possible.

The Revitalisation document calls for immediate action to cut dramatically what it calls the “revenue chasm” in earnings from television contracts between the Premier League and the EFL. In order to discourage Championship clubs from gambling recklessly on promotion, the parachute payments system would be abolished in favour of the 25 per cent share of Premier League revenue being shared more equitably among EFL clubs.

Under proposals for the new model of distribution of television revenue in the Premier League, Fenway, the driving force behind the document, insist there would be no greater share for the top six. Their stated aim is to eliminate the huge gap in earnings between Premier League and EFL clubs while in return having a greater control of the decisions made by the Premier League.

The document says: “A reset of the economics and governance of the English football pyramid is long overdue”.

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. These clubs would even be able to veto a new owner taking over a rival club.

The power will move into the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division - which includes West Ham
The power would move into the hands of the nine clubs with the longest continual stay in the division - which includes West Ham CREDIT: Getty Images
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Parry said that he had the support of many of his 72 members, many currently facing financial ruin, to go ahead with the plan. He said: “What do we do? Leave it exactly as it is and allow the smaller clubs to wither? 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, we are up for it.”

He accepted there would be opposition from the Premier League clubs outside the big six who would see it as detrimental to their financial prospects with less money and two fewer places in the top flight.

“It is definitely going to be challenging and it is an enormous change so that won’t be without some pain,” Parry said: “Do I genuinely think it’s for the greater good of the game as a whole? Absolutely. And if the [big] six are deriving some benefit then why shouldn’t they. Why wouldn’t they put their names to this otherwise?”

The proposals include:

£250 million immediately to the EFL to compensate its clubs for lost matchday revenue, deducted from future television revenue earnings and financed by a loan taken out by the Premier League
Special status for the nine longest serving clubs – and the vote of only six of those “long-term shareholders” required to make major changes, including amending rules and regulations, agreeing contracts, removal of the chief executive, and a wide-ranging veto including on club ownership
Premier League to go to 18 clubs from 20
£100 million one-off gift to the FA to cover its coronavirus losses, the non-league game, the women’s game, the grassroots
8.5 per cent of annual net Premier League revenue to go on operating costs and “good causes” including the FA
From the remainder, 25 per cent of all combined Premier League and Football League revenues to go to the EFL clubs
Six per cent of Premier League gross revenues to pay for stadium improvements across the top four divisions, calculated at £100 per seat
New rules for the distribution of Premier League television income, overseas and domestic, including proposals that base one portion on performance over three years in the league
The abolition of the League Cup and the Community Shield
24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two reducing the professional game overall from 92 clubs to 90
A women's professional league independent of the Premier League or the FA
Two sides automatically relegated from the Premier League every season and the top two Championship teams promoted. The 16th place Premier League club in a play-off tournament with the Championship’s third, fourth and fifth placed teams.
Financial fair play regulations in line with Uefa, and full access for Premier League executive to club accounts
A fan charter including capping of away tickets at £20, away travel subsidised, a focus on a return to safe standing, a minimum away allocation of eight per cent capacity
Later Premier League start in August to give greater scope for pre-season friendlies, and requirement for all clubs to compete once every five years in a summer Premier League tournament
Huge changes to loan system allowing clubs to have 15 players out on loan domestically at any one time and up to four at a single club in England
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
If this proposal goes through, I’m done with football.All about money and power-the ‘beautiful game’ reduced to a commodity to be controlled by a concentration of power.Driven by two clubs owned by foreigners.
  1. 11-10-2020 14:07
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
"Later Premier League start in August to give greater scope for pre-season friendlies"

That's my favourite bit. Any claim that the big clubs want the number of PL games reduced due to players getting tired is (and always has been) bollocks. They want to free up some space for a lucrative tour of Japan.
  1. 11-10-2020 14:15
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
They have put the £20 away ticket price to shortsite supporters to support it.

I said it was coming if the premier league bailed out, the only thing missing is the B teams which will come. The cancellation of the league cup is a given, surprised they want rid of the charity shield and not take it to America or Dubai.

Whoever’s in the premier league, when this goes through, IE now will have such a huge advantage.

Football stopped being a sport a long time ago, but this is ridiculous. Money talks though and it’ll go through as clubs are skint. We will support it, short sited thinking.
  1. 11-10-2020 14:20
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Top six using the current turmoil to further their own ends. So predictable.
Not sure any of the FL clubs will be able to resist that sweet sweet handout though.
Rick Parry should get his P45 on Monday. Always knew he was still in the hoc of the scoucers.
  1. 11-10-2020 14:25
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I would have them under the Bribery Act-it’s utterly pathetic.
  1. 11-10-2020 14:33
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
But can the efl afford not to take the bribe?
  1. 11-10-2020 14:36
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
If this proposal goes through, I’m done with football.All about money and power-the ‘beautiful game’ reduced to a commodity to be controlled by a concentration of power.Driven by two clubs owned by foreigners.

Ad what is the option to maintain a viable EFL structure and modernise stadia?
  1. 11-10-2020 14:39
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Greed at all levels by all clubs is the problem in the game.
Whether it be the big 6, the big 9, smaller clubs who have done well but now want to pull up the drawbridge, parachute payments , clubs gambling their future to try to get a piece of the pie, manufactured clubs bankrolled into the league. The circumstances ate different but the behaviour is the same.
  1. 11-10-2020 15:36
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
One of the great things about english football is that its dynamic,things are always changing. Some clubs rise up, some go down, some go kaput, others are formed.

The big six now want to freeze frame the current setup so they stay the big six forever - forgetting that man city, chelsea werent even big 20 for a lot of the 80s/90s. If clubs in the 50s had had the same idea we'd now be celebrating 70 years of dominance by huddersfield, blackpool and wolves. I can imagine Leicester and Leeds reply will be '[censored] off' to start with.

We're being offered the chance of more scraps on the condition we never dream of making a grab for the roast - no more carlisle's in the top division please

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees
  1. 11-10-2020 15:11
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I agree Orfc-the essence of professional football is the ladder, which provides the platform to dream.The top clubs don’t understand this, almost believing it’s an entitlement to be in the top frame with the most money.

The PL this season has demonstrated that money filtered down into the smaller PL teams is making a huge competitive difference-there are few shoe ins for the likes of Man U.Crowds and their associated revenue are no longer disproportionate-the revenue is now small beer.

The classic example of disproportionate control is the SPL and the Old Firm.I remember watching Celtic at Fir Park and losing 7-0;Larsen scored 4 from memory.We had a board meeting after the match and I tabled the motion ‘what’s the point?’Shortly after, we put the Club into admin as pouring more money into a bottomless pit against two teams with disproportionate control and votes was a sure fire way to blow your brains.

This new idea is anti football-opportunism arising from the pandemic.Its utterly pathetic
  1. 11-10-2020 15:27
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I suggest the 'big six' just ***k **f and ply their trade in Dubai or wherever with other like minded greedy *****rds from elsewhere in Europe and leave proper competitive football to those that still enjoy the beautiful game warts and all. Where all clubs and their supporters can dream of being of being a Wimbledon, a Blackburn or a Carlisle!
The 'big six' can also take their rich foreign owners with them - I wonder how many would have been approved under their proposed policies!

Yes there are some tempting bribes in there, but obviously it is all to do with creating their own closed shop.
Will the EFL be able to resist?
  1. 11-10-2020 15:42
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
What’s the alternative? Clubs die? I haven’t heard one on here yet?

It’s take the bribe or bust really. It’s utterly rubbish and is anti competition really.

But what’s the alternative? Would you rather have a Carlisle United that will never play top flight football, unless someone invest £200 million plus or the possibility it dies along with the football league.

The premier league will turn into La liga with a top 8 and Micky mouse teams filing it or the SPL. However it doesn’t affect us and most people posting don’t either.

The big issue, going forward, is future funding. What replaces league cup money, fa cup replays. Will sky/bt be still as interested in the efl or will they try and keep their money for the premier league.

Football will never be the same again, after this virus farce, but what’s the alternative? Money talks always will always has.
  1. 11-10-2020 15:59
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
We dont want clubs to die but the days of the 92 club are surely numbered?
More people support Liverpool and Man U round Carlisle than CUFC.
There are too many minnows in the lower leagues that either need to operate as feeder clubs/reserve teams in all but name, or operate in a much more low key , simpler fashion.
Clubs like Bradford and Bolton who have been in the top flight recently, cant be compared financially to the likes of Barrow and Harrogate.
There is no financial bailout that will be fair to everyone.
  1. 11-10-2020 17:08
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think a lot on here havent really experienced the glory of Carlisle in the first division and second tier.I have and this proposal means the former will never see it again, whichever billionaire passes by.
  1. 11-10-2020 17:15
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think a lot on here havent really experienced the glory of Carlisle in the first division and second tier.I have and this proposal means the former will never see it again, whichever billionaire passes by.


I agree, but it’s not looking likely at the moment either.

I also agree and think my interest will be getting thinner.

But what can the EFL do? It needs a bailout and the government won’t do it, so it’s down to the “enermy”. I just can’t see an alternative without clubs going under.
  1. 11-10-2020 17:31
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 15
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think this proposal would fail both the Bribery Act and Competition law if tested-it’s basically an opportunistic way to grab power when the world is a mess.Pathetic and watching that smug loser running Man U pulling the strings must irk a lot of people.
  1. 11-10-2020 17:34
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 16
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Not surprising that clubs owned by Americans are behind this their greed is unbelievable. When our Govt accept their trade deal post no deal brexit we will become a play thing for the yanks who will screw us.
  1. 11-10-2020 18:06
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 17
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
We've been a play toy of the Yanks for years.. let's not pretend it's new .
  1. 11-10-2020 18:13
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 18
ccu
Site Admin
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. 11-10-2020 18:30
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 19
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Looks like a done deal-except for the rest of the EPL
  1. 11-10-2020 19:06
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 20
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I haven’t seen how any vote works etc. But apart from the 6 and 9 why would any of the other clubs want it. 2 less clubs and no parachute payments- seems odd.
  1. 11-10-2020 19:37
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 21
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I was at this meeting of the SPL-this is what happens when you have concentration of voting power

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/2163891.stm
  1. 11-10-2020 20:10
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 23
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Parry pictured with our very own!

Premier League fury at radical plan backed by Manchester United and Liverpool

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-fury-at-radical-plan-backed-by-manchester-united-and-liverpool-hfmpd83s2
  1. 11-10-2020 21:34
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 24
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I fully support the proposals.

Anyone who believes the wealthiest four clubs in the country don't already call the shots is incredibly naïve. So what's really changing for the worse?

You still have promotion to the top flight. There are no "B" teams in the equation. Away fans at the top level are protected. Parachute payments are scrapped. TV money is distributed more equitably throughout all four divisions. Tier two is increased to its proper number of clubs and we trim some fat at the bottom of division four.

Currently, if we got back up to tier two level we'd have zero chance of doing a 1974. Under the new proposals (and no parachute payments distorting things) we'd actually have a slim chance, call me wildly optimistic. At worst we're not losing anything.

The reason Laffy is against the proposals is that it makes our club less likely to fail and thus means he's far less likely to be picking about over our dead carcass, lining his own pockets.
  1. 11-10-2020 21:54
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 25
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
This is basically a premier league argument. No way do the EFL say no to the money in the predicament they are in. They are happy to sacrifce two teams, but let's not forget it's not that long ago we would have been one of the favourites to be one.
The top six are basically subsidising the bung with other teams money. Their requirement for lucrative pre-season friendlies at the expense of two teams and also having 9 games on ppv on their own website shows what it is all about.
Oversees owners trying to implement American sporting philosophies.
It would probably benefit Leeds due to the overseas market, but teams have to the look at the bigger picture (the title must be the biggest misnoma of all time). Another nail in the coffin for football.
Piglet - you seem to be for it because Laffy is against it. You don't even know how the money is going to be split in the EFL. Do you think the championship will let it flow down to L2? Are you happy for 4 to go down this/next year?
  1. 12-10-2020 10:58
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 26
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I remember going to a fans forum when Paul Conway being of American decent couldn’t understand about the British loyalty to clubs belonging to a city and the loyalty of the fans to that, as in the states owners can and often do move clubs to wherever they think is more profitable. Not something that would wash in this country. If we allow these American owners their own way we will be on the road to destroying what makes our league system and game the best in the world.
  1. 12-10-2020 11:26
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 27
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Piglet-are you on drugs?I have absolutely zero interest in owning the football club.Any club in our division has zero or negative value-particularly after the pandemic has illustrated how dependant the model is on footfall and handouts from donors like PD

My comments are largely based on my own experience of voting power lying with a chosen few.Do you think wealthier individuals should have more votes in a General Election?
  1. 12-10-2020 11:31
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 28
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I'm fully aware of your intent, despite how much thou doeth protest. Your comments reveal more than you realise, either that or you think the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

Anyway, your comparison to a General Election is wide of the mark. Every vote in a UK election is not equal and what you're voting for is vastly different.

As I already say above, you have to be naïve beyond measure to believe the wealthy few do not already call the shots in English football (just like, for that matter, English politics).

I don't agree this is an "American sporting philosophy", that's nonsense. MLS is structured in a radically and fundamentally different way, it is a million miles away from how our league would look.

Carlislewhite, yes I'm happy with the idea of four teams going down this season in division four (or you could relegate two teams and have no promotion for one year, either or). It would certainly add extra spice to our division this season or next and really truly, if we finished bottom four we'd deserve what we got.

Your point about distribution of cash is a good one, but it's obvious to say clubs at tier two level would receive more every year. The point is that, even although there would be inevitable differences per the divisions, every club in the league structure would receive substantially more than they currently do (with the exception of relegated top tier sides). This would benefit the majority of clubs in the lower three divisions.

I fully understand why the smaller clubs like Leeds, Fulham, Brighton etc are against the proposals. It's greed, no more no less. Relegation for these type of clubs is an inevitability (probably sooner rather than later) and all they care about is protecting parachute payments to give them an advantage in the division below when they drop back down again.

I haven't heard one convincing argument about how these proposals are in any way detrimental to the majority of football league clubs.
  1. 12-10-2020 16:03
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 29
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
You have clearly not read the Times-the FA has a Golden share which would block this proposal.Its also very clear the ‘other 4’ are not happy with ManU and Liverpool’s plan.As for the ‘windfall’ for FL clubs, I can see the player agents circling already-it will pass through the clubs like snow off a hedge.

As for Carlisle, the notion of me or any of my ‘associates’ getting involved is fanciful.Ive bought a house in Mallorca and will be spending a lot of time there with my bike and watching the Blues, like you, on the telly.That is a much less stressful way to relax and easier on the wallet.
  1. 12-10-2020 16:49
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 30
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Fanciful cos last time you put together a ragbag coalition which fell apart after the first phone call. Might as well ask a curry house waiter to try and take over.

Luckily it fell apart before you’d taken over and not after. Otherwise we’d have been selling garmin goods in eBay to make ends meet
  1. 12-10-2020 17:07
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 31
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
How would you know?Why don’t you ask Robin Brown or Roger Smith or Mark Harper-previous Carlisle VPs I believe but committed to the syndicate.Or what about Santon Capital who came out in support-they have enough money to build a new Brunton Park on their own.Note also it wasn’t a takeover-how many times do I need to say that to you.We were buying about 30pc.

I was going to ask if you would have liked to have put some money in but then again, I knew you preferred billionaires who had zero connection with the club or money.Of course, all with the benefit of hindsight or perhaps a simple search on Yahoo
  1. 12-10-2020 18:42
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 32
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Santon capital are a dodgy shell company.

They've made one investment.
  1. 12-10-2020 18:52
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 33
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Careful Pig-Santon are very protective of their reputation and your latest ‘fake news’ is way, way off the mark
  1. 12-10-2020 18:55
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 34
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Fake news?

"Bimaljit Singh Sandhu holds 15 appointments at 15 active companies, has resigned from 94 companies and held 34 appointments at 34 dissolved companies."

All reputable, of course.
  1. 12-10-2020 19:01
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 35
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
And another.

Your plans for Brunton Park more or less revealed.

https://www.theravenpropertygroup.com/
  1. 12-10-2020 19:03
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 36
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I honestly don’t think you can add up or read a set of accounts-you are also morphing into a stalker.

Try Cos House
  1. 12-10-2020 19:03
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 37
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It's called due diligence, Laffy.

If you're already a shareholder why wouldn't you properly check out any ragtag bunch of chancers who turn up on the off chance they can make a fast one?
  1. 12-10-2020 19:11
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 38
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
What a pity the DD didn’t extend to billionaires!

Anyway, what’s your view on Roger, Mark and Robin?All directors box attendees and pillars of Carlisle society.They were the first 3 names on the list.
  1. 12-10-2020 19:14
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 39
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
My view is if they've actually put money into the club and are invited into the director's box it proves they aren't "all mouth but no trousers".
  1. 12-10-2020 19:23
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 40
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think you will find your DD is crap in that Raven are a completely separate group to Santon-they demerged years ago.Bim kept Santon and Anton kept Raven.Both very successful of course.Check out Raven Russia PLC-hardly Mickey Mouse

As for the inexplicable reasons as to why Robin, Mark and Roger were investing in the syndicate, I will leave that to you, save that all three were to be appointed Board members post investment instead of simply sitting in the box for a fee.
  1. 12-10-2020 19:29
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 41
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Completely separate brothers, not related at all then.

We're clearly entering into MAMMCAR territory here with your dodgy little scheme.

"Look at how wealthy my friend's Russian property portfolio is". Right then.
  1. 12-10-2020 19:45
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 42
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think having different names and shareholders is the clue-will leave you to work it out.

I think you will find I called MK out many years ago-ask Amanda Little
  1. 12-10-2020 20:01
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 43
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Tell me Laffy - what was AJ referring to when he commented of his refusal to do what you had asked him to do?
  1. 12-10-2020 20:58
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 44
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I can’t say I’m afraid
  1. 13-10-2020 07:53
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 45
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think it would be naive to think that giving the big PL clubs more power wouldn’t result in their B teams entering the pyramid within a couple of years.
  1. 13-10-2020 08:52
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 46
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think it would be naive to think that giving the big PL clubs more power wouldn’t result in their B teams entering the pyramid within a couple of years.


No relegation and B-teams being voted in in future are the concerns, but not enough detail has been given about the proposed enhanced voting rights to determine how realistic that is. They might be able to outvote the rest of the PL on issues, but how would they get a vote on EFL matters and be able to outweigh the votes of the rest of the pyramid re B Teams?

On the other hand I'd be quite happy to see the back of the Charity Shield and League Cup. Ironically, the League Cup has been a B team competition for many years.
  1. 13-10-2020 09:02
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 47
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think the increased voting rights issue is all about money. They'll ultimately want greater control over their TV rights. They'll want even greater share of an already huge pie.
  1. 13-10-2020 10:53
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 48
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I presume the 'big clubs' feel they can make much more money by swanning around Asia or America than competing in the official curtain raiser to the season which was set up to raise money for charities and community projects as well as distributing money to every club who entered the FA Cup.
Maybe the money raised is fairly insignificant now in the big scheme of things, however the ethos behind it is good and should be celebrated in my opinion.

I understand the thinking behind the league cup being scrapped, however I believe it should be retained but without those clubs who qualified for Europe.

The overall proposal is still a bribe to ensure more power to the already powerful and should be opposed as it is being presented at present, however there are sensible things in there too and maybe some compromise can be reached which could benefit everyone and yet retain football's integrity and element of competition.
  1. 13-10-2020 11:13
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 49
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation


Carlislewhite, yes I'm happy with the idea of four teams going down this season in division four (or you could relegate two teams and have no promotion for one year, either or). It would certainly add extra spice to our division this season or next and really truly, if we finished bottom four we'd deserve what we got.

Your point about distribution of cash is a good one, but it's obvious to say clubs at tier two level would receive more every year. The point is that, even although there would be inevitable differences per the divisions, every club in the league structure would receive substantially more than they currently do (with the exception of relegated top tier sides). This would benefit the majority of clubs in the lower three divisions.

I fully understand why the smaller clubs like Leeds, Fulham, Brighton etc are against the proposals. It's greed, no more no less. Relegation for these type of clubs is an inevitability (probably sooner rather than later) and all they care about is protecting parachute payments to give them an advantage in the division below when they drop back down again.

I haven't heard one convincing argument about how these proposals are in any way detrimental to the majority of football league clubs.

I was going to give the post a like for responding, until you called Leeds a small club. I've already pointed out, if Leeds had the overseas rights to stage 8 games on LUTV we'd be quids in because of the overseas following. There were 7K Leeds fans at a game in Perth last pre-season.
Much more importantly, I heard a podcast this morning that said the additional distribution to L2 under the new arrangement would be £2.1M, so less than £100K a team (it was £15M to the Champ and £3.5M to L1). That is a pitiful amount for selling your soul and accepting feeder clubs by the back door (up to 4 players on loan from one team, which would of course increase).
Do you really belive £100K a season is good value for these downsides and the general selling of your soul to the devil?
Trying to ignore your spat with Laffy, as you make some good points, although they are very misguided in my humble viewpoint.
  1. 13-10-2020 11:58
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 50
  • Page :
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Website and all content © Copyright 2020 TheCumbrians.net. All Rights Reserved.