Proposed changes to the Premier league

[trueblue84]

Justn reading on Sky then, saying we'd be one of the 9 clubs with 'extra power' basically.

What absolute nonsense this is. We'd "benefit" from it but yet have to be against it. How can it be a fair competition then? How can ANY club have a say in what other clubs can do without a conflict of interest?

We won't benefit. Of the 9 "super clubs", only 6 need to agree to make changes. Everton, Southampton and west ham would be token members with no real power.

 

[trueblue84]

The FA have an agreement and golden share with the premier league, if they leave the premier league then they have no influence over them. UEFA will do what their leading clubs want they always have.

You do know that in the past uefa have publicly stated that the fa need more power and that breakaway leagues are bad for football? Why would they support a European super League that they would have no power over?

 

[andy4efc]

We won't benefit. Of the 9 "super clubs", only 6 need to agree to make changes. Everton, Southampton and west ham would be token members with no real power.

Hence the benefit being in " 's

 

[WA Toffee]

Thanks. So basically we hope 14 clubs don't approve it

No, only needs 7 to vote against. Only approved if 14 vote for it

 

[DanB90]

How about we share some the billions made down the football pyramid a bit anyway, and don’t use it as an excuse to empower a small minority of clubs?

 

[catcherintherye]

City as a whole club - fanbase included, have had a very nuanced, and to an extent ambivalent relationship with Europe. There is still a very real dislike, and you could use stronger eords, than that, for EUFA and all it stands for, especially how it has tried to victimise and isolate them. The tradition of the Poznan for the UEFA anthem reflects that feeling.

Yes all very fair. I mean essentially the view that the top 6 boards all have a shared viewpoint is probably not the case. I'm sure City would on the one hand be open to more inequality in how TV funds are distributed on prize money, but might be nervous of more PPV as they know they'd lose ground to United/Liverpool. In truth, there must also be a private feeling at City that grinding United into the ground is a good thing. It will allow City to further monopolise the City of Manchester as the leading club- which puts them in a very strong position. Why would they want to save United?

 

[catcherintherye]

City as a whole club - fanbase included, have had a very nuanced, and to an extent ambivalent relationship with Europe. There is still a very real dislike, and you could use stronger eords, than that, for EUFA and all it stands for, especially how it has tried to victimise and isolate them. The tradition of the Poznan for the UEFA anthem reflects that feeling.

Yes all very fair. I mean essentially the view that the top 6 boards all have a shared viewpoint is probably not the case. I'm sure City would on the one hand be open to more inequality in how TV funds are distributed on prize money, but might be nervous of more PPV as they know they'd lose ground to United/Liverpool. In truth, there must also be a private feeling at City that grinding United into the ground is a good thing. It will allow City to further monopolise the City of Manchester as the leading club- which puts them in a very strong position. Why would they want to save United?

 

[catcherintherye]

Yes even inferring, from reading between the lines, from the article the journo who broke the story, Sam Wallace, wrote this morning....(ahead of the shareholders vote of premier league clubs on Wednesday)

Of the seven clubs who aren't (as yet) thought to be opposed, 'the big six' and ourselves.

.... a quote from the article says

'(what) is not yet clear is how prepared the other four members of the so-called big six - Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City - would be to back the plan. There are also questions over Everton’s intentions - the club has ambitions of reaching the Champions League and would qualify for “special voting rights” under PBP owing to its longevity in the top flight'

You can infer that the support of the others is far from a foregone conclusion, and each may well have objections

It looks to me like City and United have massively overreached themselves here.

I'd hope our board would just tell to sling it. However we are probably looking at things such as money for stadium grants, and that we might be in Europe next year and breaking into the Top 6 and weighing it up. Liverpool and United's board are not bothered of any percieved rivalry with Everton, they will be happy to have support if it can have a carve up.

 

[WA Toffee]

We won't benefit. Of the 9 "super clubs", only 6 need to agree to make changes. Everton, Southampton and west ham would be token members with no real power.

Or us 3 could get together with chelsea, man city and spurs to vote man utd and the rs out of the league altogether

 

[catcherintherye]

What evidence, I can find nothing to support your arguement?

The evidence is that the PL is the most watched product and when those teams play in other competitions, includng against top European teams, viewerships drop. It is also that the gap in viewership is actually relatively marginal, especially when you factor the differential in exposure and marketing sides at the top get.

I have presented this evidence to you multiple times, so I'm not sure if you're just being facetious.

There is not a single bit of evidence to say, that the PL would not have viewership at a similar level in the medium term if teams x, y or z left the league. In fact the opposite, lots of big "revenue generators" have been relegated, yet viewing figures have remained very steady.

 

[bcblue1878]

We will vote with it.

Just wait and see.

Can’t see us voting for it unless and until Uzmanov is officially on board! If he isn’t and we go down the route of voting for it the rules they are proposing means they ( the six) can stop any future ownership changes if I’ve read it right?

Even with Uzmanov on board I’d be really disappointed in Everton agreeing to the proposal as it currently stands. Why would Everton vote for any deal that means they have little or no influence in any future decision making, it stinks!

 

[bcblue1878]

We will be one of the 9 clubs with a senior vote.

The deal will pay for half of the stadium build, Moshiri is a business man and will go for it.

As I understand it the “nine” would have a vote, but it only needs a majority of six - and guess who they would be. Our vote would effectively be worthless!

 

[Cels]

​

 

[Furey1878]

How about we share some the billions made down the football pyramid a bit anyway, and don’t use it as an excuse to empower a small minority of clubs?

Exactly man, hell I'm not even against reducing the league to 18, but it's not a gracious offer of support to the lower leagues, it's a bribe to get more power in the game.

 

[Moomin]

As I understand it the “nine” would have a vote, but it only needs a majority of six - and guess who they would be. Our vote would effectively be worthless!

Just wait and see.