Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Proposed changes to the Premier league

Status
Not open for further replies.
catcherintherye said:
Essentially yes. If it was in any way viable they'd be gone. It's a bluff. The same way hedge fund managers etc use the "we will leave" to threaten the UK government against legislation and taxation. They have nowhere to go.

At some point the league has to start testing the will of those sides and asking who actually wants to leave. If say United wanted to leave the PL, it would be one of the most stupid decisions they could take. I'm surprised more teams haven't grown a bit braver and just called them out. If you want to go and play each other every week, go and do so. See how long the novelty lasts before it starts to wear off.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a great analogy & I do think there is an element of bluff on both sides here. Man United need the PL; but in turn if we are all brutally honest the league needs Man United if it wishes to exist with the luxuries it has at present.

We have had a few debates around this on here previously & I do see the argument against the incredibly flat distribution of TV revenue in the PL & yet the flip side of that is, the unpredictability caused by the revenue at the bottom makes it the league it is.

I have zero doubt that this is the first "bid" to open negotiations, which will ultimately lead to a deal favouring the top 6 in terms of tv revenue, but probably not in terms of voting rights, or at least not to the extent that they are pushing for now.
 

woomy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not sure why squads would be much smaller? Also note the provision to have 15 players out on loan, including up to 4 at a single club. Another rule that favours the wealthier clubs who will cover up young talent and loan them out with little risk and huge potential rewards.

Scumbags. But we knew that.
 
GrandOldTeam said:
Everton would potentially be able to claim back £250 million on their proposed new £500 million Bramley Moore dock stadium.


WELL THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING
Click to expand...

I fear this may well end up meaning we get behind the proposals, but let's be honest - this is a bribe. They'd pay for half of our new stadium to get us to back this proposal and it'll be really difficult to say no to
 
catcherintherye said:
I remember reading Naomi Klein on the Shock Doctrine, and essentially they invent a crisis and set the paramaters for how things have to change. It seems to follow this rhetoric. The question is why? Even in their own terms, the PL UK has never been so succesful. It is a world leading product now. There is no evidence to suggest a league with less teams would be more successful.
Click to expand...

Really sad that you only need to change two letters in that post & it sums up brexit
 

moyeslovechild said:
Honestly... Bar the voting thing, everything else is spot on and what needs to happen. Yet to hear any real argument against most of the actual plans

But yer the voting thing not the best. However, it Is a bit of a joke Mickey mouse clubs like Norwich / Fulham can have the same voting power as established clubs before they slither back down to the lower division

The stuff as it pertains to the rest of the league pyramid Is really great
Click to expand...
Rubbish mate, why would anyone want a reduction in the size of the PL? Part of the enjoyment is seeing the so called big clubs cut down to size by so called lesser clubs.
Any way I'm more or less finished with watching footy (after about 65 years) as I just don't seem to enjoy it any more.
 
jinkyali said:
Be the end of me and the blues this.
Click to expand...

I'm horrified mate.

There are part of the proposals which are fine - the EFL should do much better out of it and protecting the pyramid is a great idea. There are elements which I'm not mad keen on (League Cup and Community Shield binned off) which I don't love, but I could live with. There are parts of it though - the important parts I would imagine as far as the top 6 goes - that I can't stomach for a single moment, mostly around the formal creation of a super six team cabal which effectively control the league. It's unpalatable to me, no matter what the size of the bribe.
 
number4. said:
the challange with that arguement is it would make money & I think its more a question of timing.

With the exception of the PL, the "big clubs" in all other leagues have the TV deals stacked in their favour. Barca & Real have over 50% of the revenue from driving well over 50% of the global viewing, which while on one hand sounds fair enough, it creates an uncompetitive environment, which ultimately is costing them longer term with TV money decreasing and they are suddenly exposed and seeking further revenue. Similar stories in Italy (Juve get almost 20%) & Germany, where the traditional power houses, get what many would argue is their fair share of the pie.

So why now...

No need to be a genius to see how hard Covid has hit across Europe. The threat of a Superleague is probably more live now than ever before & as so, the PL team feel they have the leverage to negotiate hard with the other clubs & the league themselves. For the sake of balanced debate here, I am going to drop both merseyside clubs from the example below.

Man United in 2013 delivered 52% of all viewers in the PL globally, they are still delivering over 25% and yet they recieved just under 7% of the TV revenue last season. Being honest, if I was in there shoes I think I would be asking the same.

What will happen....
there will be more kiting of a European Superleague; followed by PL debate and some of these concessions met and a middle ground around "revenue share" & voting rights, which will increase "big club" revenue making it harder and harder for the likes of a Burnley / Sheff United / Brighton etc. We will probably benefit; but not to the same level as the traditionally top teams
Click to expand...

I think you're spot on except I don't think we would benefit. It's already incredibly tough to break the cartel at the top; it would become tougher for everyone outside those top 6, and arguably tougher even for for of those 6 because of the marketing value of rs & utd. They will fix things in their favour and won't care about City, Spurs, etc. let alone anyone else.
 
The Premier League has studied the PBP proposal since it became available over the weekend and believes that if adopted it would promote a greater disparity of wealth between the top clubs and those who finish at the bottom of the league. Currently the league is the most equitable in football with a 1:1.7 ratio split of television revenue between the top club and the one that finishes last.

The Premier League will tell its members that by season 2025-2026, when the full transition has been completed, under PBP proposals the bottom club would earn between £40 million and £50 million and the top club around £160 million. That would make the ratio between top earners and the lowest 1:4. All newly promoted clubs would be obliged to hold back £25 million per season for their first two years in the league, greatly reducing their spending power and chances of survival. The £40 million to £50 million figure represents a huge fall from the £102 million that bottom club Norwich City earned last season.

I don't think anything further needs to be said. Support for this outside the top 6 clubs would be like the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas, regardless of the stadium bribes they try to entice the likes of us with
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top