Proposed changes to the Premier league

[roydo]

I’d genuinely like to know if proper match going Liverpool and Utd fans would want this

Two sides with no competition in the league, surely you’d get sick of that after a season or two

I would like to think so, but who knows? Like, Everton might support it, hope not, but we wont know for a while.

 

[Philw]

I think that the fact this is proposed by Messrs Henry, Walker and Glazers should mean anyone considering it gets their head examined. Shame as there are lots of good things in their. Unfortunately the proposed power changes and 18 team PL make it completely unacceptable as is.

 

[JohnTheBlue]

I would like to think so, but who knows? Like, Everton might support it, hope not, but we wont know for a while.

Id be livid if we got on board with anything like this

hoping over the next week one club after another condemns it

 

[Frenk]

Corrected.

“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 Man United, 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.....”

 

[roydo]

Id be livid if we got on board with anything like this

hoping over the next week one club after another condemns it

Me too. Aint right, aint even sport if 6 clubs write the rules.

 

[LEONARD]

Thin end of the wedge.

The RS would eventually like to see a Premiership comprised of one team, themselves.

They automatically win it every season, and qualify for the CL until the end of time.

 

[JohnTheBlue]

Corrected.

“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 Man United, 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.....”

imagine thinking anyone outside of those clubs would agree

 

[Dutch Toffee]

They're a disgrace to the game of football. Not that that is anything new. That plan is ignorant, arrogant, self obsessed and with a total disrespect for the game of football and its history. Tbh, could only be 2 clubs that come up with drivel like that. Hope Everton shoot it down with a powerful club statement.

 

[arbok]

I have two words for that proposal.

F off.

What a surprise, two of the most hated clubs, and American owned would want a consolidation of power. Sorry but no.

 

[tonka1878]

Scrapping the League Cup, not into that

Save the best till last.

 

[summerisle]

Thin end of the wedge.

The RS would eventually like to see a Premiership comprised of one team, themselves.

They automatically win it every season, and qualify for the CL until the end of time.

They'd still cause trouble.

 

[woomy]

Not sure what to make of it.
I can see some advantages. Less games so players will be fresher. Side effects being fresher for champions League and England games. Win more of those games and the saleability of the league improves. The bringing in even more money.

Squads will be smaller. So may help with the running costs. Less games will mean no need for larger squads. This helping the old wage bill. Or using the saved money on being able to pay the world superstars the wages to play here.
The league cup thing I don't get though. Just bang the kids in. Give them experience. Nobody says you have to bang in 1st team players.

But the power grab can't happen. No way should we ever sign up to something where the few make decisions that effect everybody else. That needs sacking off and leaving it as it is. With 70% or whatever it is needed to implement things. Turkey's voting for Xmas springs to mind.

We have seen with this streaming idea. The way we watch games IS going to change. Stadiums will still be full I reckon, but I can see a point where there is a league owned Netflix style platform with advertisement money going to the club's on top of the subscription fees. We could see the end of sky/bt having anything to do with showing games. I reckon the club's will be after that £30 a month that people currently pay sky. Why let sky have that's when the league can have it all and the advertising revenue to go with it. That additional 25% money could actually really help lower leagues.

But the proposal's as they stand surely can't get through. Tweak them, and sure why not?

 

[joebocop]

Not sure what to make of it.
I can see some advantages. Less games so players will be fresher. Side effects being fresher for champions League and England games. Win more of those games and the saleability of the league improves. The bringing in even more money.

Squads will be smaller. So may help with the running costs. Less games will mean no need for larger squads. This helping the old wage bill. Or using the saved money on being able to pay the world superstars the wages to play here.
The league cup thing I don't get though. Just bang the kids in. Give them experience. Nobody says you have to bang in 1st team players.

But the power grab can't happen. No way should we ever sign up to something where the few make decisions that effect everybody else. That needs sacking off and leaving it as it is. With 70% or whatever it is needed to implement things. Turkey's voting for Xmas springs to mind.

We have seen with this streaming idea. The way we watch games IS going to change. Stadiums will still be full I reckon, but I can see a point where there is a league owned Netflix style platform with advertisement money going to the club's on top of the subscription fees. We could see the end of sky/bt having anything to do with showing games. I reckon the club's will be after that £30 a month that people currently pay sky. Why let sky have that's when the league can have it all and the advertising revenue to go with it. That additional 25% money could actually really help lower leagues.

But the proposal's as they stand surely can't get through. Tweak them, and sure why not?

Yeah they are dressing it up as being beneficial to many when really they are trying to bribe the EFL, to save clubs in the short term at the detriment to competition in the long run.

Absolutely terrible. If this happens, football is done.

 

[mahermi1]

Corrected.

“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 Man United, 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.....”

And you just know those top six, will vote for more money for themselves and the other " big three, Everton, West Ham and Southampton" will have no say in the matter as you know it only needs 6 of the 9 teams to make the decisions that matter. If the other three us and whoever vote for that it will be akin to a Turkey voting for Christmas.

 

[ValBlue]

I’d genuinely like to know if proper match going Liverpool and Utd fans would want this

Two sides with no competition in the league, surely you’d get sick of that after a season or two

Actually went on a bit of a lurk in Red Cafe and RAWK just to see their perspective and quite a fair few of their posters seemed to be equally disgusted with the more power grab parts of the proposal