Proposed changes to the Premier league

[catcherintherye]

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.

Why would the FA leave?

 

[number4.]

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.

I'll park the debate Catch, we disagree (which is good btw); my hypothesis is remains the top teams drive more views than others & they are at the core of the "Global Product", not so much here - if they left I would be confident that PL viewing and value of TV would drop especially if they moved to something like a Superleague. Yes, there is no evidence of this, but that's to be expected given it hasnt happened

 

[toffeeblue9]

I think we probably need to accept that some reform is happening - and whilst we might not *like* some of it, it's probably worth the other 14 sides working out what are the show-stoppers for them and what they may be prepared to accept. I've had a go at listing what I think would be *probably* ok if we had to compromise (and let's be honest, compromise is going to be needed for the good of the league because we don't want a breakaway super league or whatever regardless of what the angry reaction to the proposals might be - it wouldn't be in our interests or the interests of the rest of the PL) and the bits which are non-starters as they would forever shift the balance of power and wealth distribution in the league which would reduce competition.

Acceptable​

• The Premier League will be cut from 20 to 18 teams, with the Championship, League One and League Two all keeping their usual 24 clubs - This isn't ideal as we get to see less league football, but I think it's one we can compromise on
• The League Cup and the Community Shield will be completely abolished - Again, not a fan of this idea but I don't think it damages the integrity of the league, so it would be another I'd be prepared to agree to on the basis of compromise
• Promotion play-offs brought in, involving 16th-placed team in the Premier League, and 3rd, 4th and 5th in the Championship - probably makes sense in conjunction with the 18 team proposal and this type of thing works fine in the likes of Germany
• Parachute payments will be scrapped and instead, 25 per cent of Premier League revenue will be distributed to the EFL - doubt many will see this as a bad idea
• Season to start later and pre-season friendlies extended - I know the purpose of this proposal is to allow more potential for money-spinning pre-season tours etc, but there are probably practical benefits to it as well in years where there are summer international tournaments
• Funding will be provided to set up a new and independent women's league - Doubt anyone will have an issue with this?
• Fan charter including capping away tickets at £20, subsidising travel, minimum away capacities of 3000 and commitment to exploring safe standing - Think we would all be in favour here
• Annual payments of £88 million to support the maintenance of Wembley and club stadiums and training grounds in the EFL. Wembley would get £10 million, Championship clubs £2 million each, League One sides £750,000 and League Two £500,000. On top of this, 4.3 per cent of gross annual revenue, which is forecast to be £150 million, will be made available to clubs that have either built new infrastructure in the last decade or plan to do so - This is fine, but it's the bit that most concerns me that Everton will latch onto and support the whole package as given we are next in line to build a new stadium, we could potentially be the biggest winners here
• A total of £205 million a year will be shared between charities chosen by the EFL, FA and Premier League, grassroots football and the women’s game - Sound
• The Premier League’s current support for EFL academies, delivered via the Elite Player Performance Plan model, will be included in the much-increased solidarity payments but clubs below the Championship will no longer be required to have academies. The loan market, however, will be greatly expanded. Clubs will be allowed to loan out up to 15 players in total and four to any single club. Loans in will be unlimited and loanee clubs will be incentivised with contingent payments on the performances or sales of loaned players. One-month loans will be allowed for under-23s but loanees can be recalled if there is a change of manager. All contracts should be consistent with the post-Brexit rules on overseas players but force majeure provisions will be added to safeguard against future crises - Again, I don't love this idea which allows bigger clubs to harvest players and loan them out en masse, but it's one where I think you have to pick your battles.
  
  
  Unacceptable
• Nine 'long term shareholders' will be given the power and have special voting rights on all sorts of issues in the Premier League, including rule changes, who becomes chief executive, and even if a new owner can take over at another club, with the votes of only 6 of these 9 required to pass - Absolutely not. Doesn't matter if we are one of the 9 or not, the concept of 6 teams being able to overrule 12 others is frightening. The furthest I would concede here would be to propose moving from the current system of 14 votes being required to pass changes, to a simple majority required. It, in fairness, would be more democratic than the system we have now
• The total amount the Premier League will distribute to its 18 clubs will fall from 92 per cent of the rights income to 75 per cent, with a big change to the distribution formula. Instead of the sponsorship income and half of the domestic and international media rights being divided evenly, with the rest according to the number of times each club is picked for broadcast in the UK and merit payments related to finishing positions, the whole pot will now be shared on a 50/25/25 basis. Half will be shared equally, with 25 per cent being divided for current season merit payments and the final 25 per cent awarded for a club’s “three-year aggregate” position. - No, on the basis that the revenue split will lead to further competitive detriment, also the the “three-year aggregate” component, which does not include the season just completed, is essentially a hedge against the occasional bad season for the top sides, so that they can maintain a steady income stream. A shift from 92 per cent to 75 per cent might be fair, but the top sides here know that they 17 per cent they are giving away largely isn't their own money on the basis of the redistribution of revenue - if the redistribution element was removed, this may become more acceptable.
• Hard salary caps in the EFL, with the Premier League and Championship adopting UEFA’s much stricter financial fair play (FFP) rules, including a £50 million annual cap on “related party transactions” - Absolutely no way. Hard salary caps are welcome, but only if they apply at PL level too. Adopting stricter FFP rules is the exact opposite direction we need to move to, otherwise in conjunction with the proposals on revenue redistribution this closes the door further on any clubs wanting to ever try to compete at the top level. We absolutely need to ensure that an oligarch/oil-rich state/whoever can't simply buy their way to success and blow everyone else out of the water, but we also need to ensure that rules don't mean that it becomes a practical impossibility for clubs outside the elite to ever reach it themselves. Again, it's anti-competitive and the £50 million hard cap on related party payments is aimed at the likes of City and (to a far lesser degree) ourselves. By all means have a league-wide spending cap, but make it the same for everyone otherwise you are deliberately creating an uneven playing field forever based on the status quo of today.
• In exchange for all the extra money, the EFL “irrevocably grants” its broadcast rights to the Premier League. The FA would have an option to hand over its FA Cup rights, too, should it want the top-flight’s sales team to take the full bundle of English club rights to market. The UK’s Saturday afternoon broadcast blackout would return but Premier League clubs would get eight live matches a season to sell abroad via their digital platforms, while all Premier League and Championship clubs would be able to show in-game highlights. No more than 27 games per club can be shown live in the UK - No, all of this sounds absolutely fine until you get to the bit about the 8 live games per season. That means the value of any central packages sold will decrease over time and again affects competition as the likes of Liverpool and United know this will put them currently at a huge competitive advantage to everyone else given their worldwide fanbases. This is most definitely the thin end of the wedge and eventually leads to clubs selling their own TV rights full stop, which leads you to a Spain type model where two clubs dominate everything forever. The beauty of our league is how competitive it is and anything which is done to try to affect the level of competition should be resisted wherever possible.

 

[catcherintherye]

I'll park the debate Catch, we disagree (which is good btw); my hypothesis is remains the top teams drive more views than others & they are at the core of the "Global Product", not so much here - if they left I would be confident that PL viewing and value of TV would drop especially if they moved to something like a Superleague. Yes, there is no evidence of this, but that's to be expected given it hasnt happened

There's no doubt those teams are more watched. They are not substantially more watched in the key economic area though.

As you say you have a hypothesis that at this point is unsupported. It's not without credence either, but the frustration is many of it's advocates (I'm not saying you) treat it as fact when it's not. It's an opinion.

 

[catcherintherye]

I think we probably need to accept that some reform is happening - and whilst we might not *like* some of it, it's probably worth the other 14 sides working out what are the show-stoppers for them and what they may be prepared to accept. I've had a go at listing what I think would be *probably* ok if we had to compromise (and let's be honest, compromise is going to be needed for the good of the league because we don't want a breakaway super league or whatever regardless of what the angry reaction to the proposals might be - it wouldn't be in our interests or the interests of the rest of the PL) and the bits which are non-starters as they would forever shift the balance of power and wealth distribution in the league which would reduce competition.

Acceptable​

• The Premier League will be cut from 20 to 18 teams, with the Championship, League One and League Two all keeping their usual 24 clubs - This isn't ideal as we get to see less league football, but I think it's one we can compromise on
• The League Cup and the Community Shield will be completely abolished - Again, not a fan of this idea but I don't think it damages the integrity of the league, so it would be another I'd be prepared to agree to on the basis of compromise
• Promotion play-offs brought in, involving 16th-placed team in the Premier League, and 3rd, 4th and 5th in the Championship - probably makes sense in conjunction with the 18 team proposal and this type of thing works fine in the likes of Germany
• Parachute payments will be scrapped and instead, 25 per cent of Premier League revenue will be distributed to the EFL - doubt many will see this as a bad idea
• Season to start later and pre-season friendlies extended - I know the purpose of this proposal is to allow more potential for money-spinning pre-season tours etc, but there are probably practical benefits to it as well in years where there are summer international tournaments
• Funding will be provided to set up a new and independent women's league - Doubt anyone will have an issue with this?
• Fan charter including capping away tickets at £20, subsidising travel, minimum away capacities of 3000 and commitment to exploring safe standing - Think we would all be in favour here
• Annual payments of £88 million to support the maintenance of Wembley and club stadiums and training grounds in the EFL. Wembley would get £10 million, Championship clubs £2 million each, League One sides £750,000 and League Two £500,000. On top of this, 4.3 per cent of gross annual revenue, which is forecast to be £150 million, will be made available to clubs that have either built new infrastructure in the last decade or plan to do so - This is fine, but it's the bit that most concerns me that Everton will latch onto and support the whole package as given we are next in line to build a new stadium, we could potentially be the biggest winners here
• A total of £205 million a year will be shared between charities chosen by the EFL, FA and Premier League, grassroots football and the women’s game - Sound
• The Premier League’s current support for EFL academies, delivered via the Elite Player Performance Plan model, will be included in the much-increased solidarity payments but clubs below the Championship will no longer be required to have academies. The loan market, however, will be greatly expanded. Clubs will be allowed to loan out up to 15 players in total and four to any single club. Loans in will be unlimited and loanee clubs will be incentivised with contingent payments on the performances or sales of loaned players. One-month loans will be allowed for under-23s but loanees can be recalled if there is a change of manager. All contracts should be consistent with the post-Brexit rules on overseas players but force majeure provisions will be added to safeguard against future crises - Again, I don't love this idea which allows bigger clubs to harvest players and loan them out en masse, but it's one where I think you have to pick your battles.
  
  
  Unacceptable
• Nine 'long term shareholders' will be given the power and have special voting rights on all sorts of issues in the Premier League, including rule changes, who becomes chief executive, and even if a new owner can take over at another club, with the votes of only 6 of these 9 required to pass - Absolutely not. Doesn't matter if we are one of the 9 or not, the concept of 6 teams being able to overrule 12 others is frightening. The furthest I would concede here would be to propose moving from the current system of 14 votes being required to pass changes, to a simple majority required. It, in fairness, would be more democratic than the system we have now
• The total amount the Premier League will distribute to its 18 clubs will fall from 92 per cent of the rights income to 75 per cent, with a big change to the distribution formula. Instead of the sponsorship income and half of the domestic and international media rights being divided evenly, with the rest according to the number of times each club is picked for broadcast in the UK and merit payments related to finishing positions, the whole pot will now be shared on a 50/25/25 basis. Half will be shared equally, with 25 per cent being divided for current season merit payments and the final 25 per cent awarded for a club’s “three-year aggregate” position. - No, on the basis that the revenue split will lead to further competitive detriment, also the the “three-year aggregate” component, which does not include the season just completed, is essentially a hedge against the occasional bad season for the top sides, so that they can maintain a steady income stream. A shift from 92 per cent to 75 per cent might be fair, but the top sides here know that they 17 per cent they are giving away largely isn't their own money on the basis of the redistribution of revenue - if the redistribution element was removed, this may become more acceptable.
• Hard salary caps in the EFL, with the Premier League and Championship adopting UEFA’s much stricter financial fair play (FFP) rules, including a £50 million annual cap on “related party transactions” - Absolutely no way. Hard salary caps are welcome, but only if they apply at PL level too. Adopting stricter FFP rules is the exact opposite direction we need to move to, otherwise in conjunction with the proposals on revenue redistribution this closes the door further on any clubs wanting to ever try to compete at the top level. We absolutely need to ensure that an oligarch/oil-rich state/whoever can't simply buy their way to success and blow everyone else out of the water, but we also need to ensure that rules don't mean that it becomes a practical impossibility for clubs outside the elite to ever reach it themselves. Again, it's anti-competitive and the £50 million hard cap on related party payments is aimed at the likes of City and (to a far lesser degree) ourselves. By all means have a league-wide spending cap, but make it the same for everyone otherwise you are deliberately creating an uneven playing field forever based on the status quo of today.
• In exchange for all the extra money, the EFL “irrevocably grants” its broadcast rights to the Premier League. The FA would have an option to hand over its FA Cup rights, too, should it want the top-flight’s sales team to take the full bundle of English club rights to market. The UK’s Saturday afternoon broadcast blackout would return but Premier League clubs would get eight live matches a season to sell abroad via their digital platforms, while all Premier League and Championship clubs would be able to show in-game highlights. No more than 27 games per club can be shown live in the UK - No, all of this sounds absolutely fine until you get to the bit about the 8 live games per season. That means the value of any central packages sold will decrease over time and again affects competition as the likes of Liverpool and United know this will put them currently at a huge competitive advantage to everyone else given their worldwide fanbases. This is most definitely the thin end of the wedge and eventually leads to clubs selling their own TV rights full stop, which leads you to a Spain type model where two clubs dominate everything forever. The beauty of our league is how competitive it is and anything which is done to try to affect the level of competition should be resisted wherever possible.

Yes I mean essentially much of this. Personally I would also not move to an 18 team league. I have yet to see any evidence that a smaller league than the PL have had more success. In fact all evidence points to it being less successful.

Charity Shield- yes that can go if needs be. Personally I'd keep the league cup but can see sense in moving it on.

Support for womens orgs, ticketing, payments to lower leagues etc, that should all stay. Voting, amendment of shareholders and disparity in TV payments should stay as they are, or ideally become more equal. Likewise, no PPV games.

If they want a compromise, there it is.

 

[number4.]

There's no doubt those teams are more watched. They are not substantially more watched in the key economic area though.

As you say you have a hypothesis that at this point is unsupported. It's not without credence either, but the frustration is many of it's advocates (I'm not saying you) treat it as fact when it's not. It's an opinion.

Final point (i promise) while the UK remains the key economic area for PL rights (55% I think), I expect part of the reasoning for Project big idea; is the perceived undervaluation of overseas rights.

 

[AsiaAsia82]

I think it’s foolish for EFL to think the cascading of cash is done without a full wage cap, otherwise the extra cash will just drive up players wages in line with the increase.
There needs to be a basic finanacial model where grounds, facilities, policing, even fans travel is funded by FA/PL and the variability of performance and subsequent number of fans dictate how successful a club is, otherwise clubs will spend themselves into debt trying to compete.

 

[Tony101]

Keep the league cup. I love going the league cup games. It gives me a chance to take me little nephews to Goodison before Covid. Also gives the team a chance at a Trophy. They don’t want this but they want more time for friendly’s. don’t let the Americans destroy the premier league.

 

[Jacko93]

The issue as I see it, is that Liverpool and United have both maximised their earnings from how it is now. They have won the UCL, won the Prem, won the cups. Their fan base is not going to grow exponentially, or likely to far beyond what it already is at a really high level considering the saturation currently. They have less opportunity for progress than the other clubs around them, like City, Everton, Tottenham. They are simoply trying to maintain a revenue stream, strip the oportunity for others to build and close down.

Liverpool are huge proponents of net spend. Its should therefore come as no surprise then that eth £250m pound they are 'giving' to the EFL, comes from the removal of parachute payments. In 2017/18 these totalled ~£243m, plus then £100m in solidarity payments split across all remaining 64 clubs. this proposal removes those payments, instead, they will just give them £250m, once. The TV rights will likely reduce in value as clubs promote their own subscription platforms. 8 games in the proposal, but as has been proven, if they see more value in having every game streamed on their platform, they will just do it as they are the only ones who have to vote. Rights issue tumbles, money to clubs without huge fan base dwindles, payments to EFL reduce, clubs go bust and no doubt get replaced with B teams, Liverpool play United 12 times a season at all levels, and the game has gone. However, the owners of these two clubs will have made enough money by then and would have got out.

Strange thing though, seeing Liverpool FC getting so close and cosy with United. Everton fans took plenty of stick, and the Brick got vandalised for merely allowing United, as the away team visiting Anfield to drink at a pub, while it seems Liverpool FC and United are sucking each others toes.

 

[trueblue84]

I think we probably need to accept that some reform is happening - and whilst we might not *like* some of it, it's probably worth the other 14 sides working out what are the show-stoppers for them and what they may be prepared to accept. I've had a go at listing what I think would be *probably* ok if we had to compromise (and let's be honest, compromise is going to be needed for the good of the league because we don't want a breakaway super league or whatever regardless of what the angry reaction to the proposals might be - it wouldn't be in our interests or the interests of the rest of the PL) and the bits which are non-starters as they would forever shift the balance of power and wealth distribution in the league which would reduce competition.

Acceptable​

• The Premier League will be cut from 20 to 18 teams, with the Championship, League One and League Two all keeping their usual 24 clubs - This isn't ideal as we get to see less league football, but I think it's one we can compromise on
• The League Cup and the Community Shield will be completely abolished - Again, not a fan of this idea but I don't think it damages the integrity of the league, so it would be another I'd be prepared to agree to on the basis of compromise
• Promotion play-offs brought in, involving 16th-placed team in the Premier League, and 3rd, 4th and 5th in the Championship - probably makes sense in conjunction with the 18 team proposal and this type of thing works fine in the likes of Germany
• Parachute payments will be scrapped and instead, 25 per cent of Premier League revenue will be distributed to the EFL - doubt many will see this as a bad idea
• Season to start later and pre-season friendlies extended - I know the purpose of this proposal is to allow more potential for money-spinning pre-season tours etc, but there are probably practical benefits to it as well in years where there are summer international tournaments
• Funding will be provided to set up a new and independent women's league - Doubt anyone will have an issue with this?
• Fan charter including capping away tickets at £20, subsidising travel, minimum away capacities of 3000 and commitment to exploring safe standing - Think we would all be in favour here
• Annual payments of £88 million to support the maintenance of Wembley and club stadiums and training grounds in the EFL. Wembley would get £10 million, Championship clubs £2 million each, League One sides £750,000 and League Two £500,000. On top of this, 4.3 per cent of gross annual revenue, which is forecast to be £150 million, will be made available to clubs that have either built new infrastructure in the last decade or plan to do so - This is fine, but it's the bit that most concerns me that Everton will latch onto and support the whole package as given we are next in line to build a new stadium, we could potentially be the biggest winners here
• A total of £205 million a year will be shared between charities chosen by the EFL, FA and Premier League, grassroots football and the women’s game - Sound
• The Premier League’s current support for EFL academies, delivered via the Elite Player Performance Plan model, will be included in the much-increased solidarity payments but clubs below the Championship will no longer be required to have academies. The loan market, however, will be greatly expanded. Clubs will be allowed to loan out up to 15 players in total and four to any single club. Loans in will be unlimited and loanee clubs will be incentivised with contingent payments on the performances or sales of loaned players. One-month loans will be allowed for under-23s but loanees can be recalled if there is a change of manager. All contracts should be consistent with the post-Brexit rules on overseas players but force majeure provisions will be added to safeguard against future crises - Again, I don't love this idea which allows bigger clubs to harvest players and loan them out en masse, but it's one where I think you have to pick your battles.
  
  
  Unacceptable
• Nine 'long term shareholders' will be given the power and have special voting rights on all sorts of issues in the Premier League, including rule changes, who becomes chief executive, and even if a new owner can take over at another club, with the votes of only 6 of these 9 required to pass - Absolutely not. Doesn't matter if we are one of the 9 or not, the concept of 6 teams being able to overrule 12 others is frightening. The furthest I would concede here would be to propose moving from the current system of 14 votes being required to pass changes, to a simple majority required. It, in fairness, would be more democratic than the system we have now
• The total amount the Premier League will distribute to its 18 clubs will fall from 92 per cent of the rights income to 75 per cent, with a big change to the distribution formula. Instead of the sponsorship income and half of the domestic and international media rights being divided evenly, with the rest according to the number of times each club is picked for broadcast in the UK and merit payments related to finishing positions, the whole pot will now be shared on a 50/25/25 basis. Half will be shared equally, with 25 per cent being divided for current season merit payments and the final 25 per cent awarded for a club’s “three-year aggregate” position. - No, on the basis that the revenue split will lead to further competitive detriment, also the the “three-year aggregate” component, which does not include the season just completed, is essentially a hedge against the occasional bad season for the top sides, so that they can maintain a steady income stream. A shift from 92 per cent to 75 per cent might be fair, but the top sides here know that they 17 per cent they are giving away largely isn't their own money on the basis of the redistribution of revenue - if the redistribution element was removed, this may become more acceptable.
• Hard salary caps in the EFL, with the Premier League and Championship adopting UEFA’s much stricter financial fair play (FFP) rules, including a £50 million annual cap on “related party transactions” - Absolutely no way. Hard salary caps are welcome, but only if they apply at PL level too. Adopting stricter FFP rules is the exact opposite direction we need to move to, otherwise in conjunction with the proposals on revenue redistribution this closes the door further on any clubs wanting to ever try to compete at the top level. We absolutely need to ensure that an oligarch/oil-rich state/whoever can't simply buy their way to success and blow everyone else out of the water, but we also need to ensure that rules don't mean that it becomes a practical impossibility for clubs outside the elite to ever reach it themselves. Again, it's anti-competitive and the £50 million hard cap on related party payments is aimed at the likes of City and (to a far lesser degree) ourselves. By all means have a league-wide spending cap, but make it the same for everyone otherwise you are deliberately creating an uneven playing field forever based on the status quo of today.
• In exchange for all the extra money, the EFL “irrevocably grants” its broadcast rights to the Premier League. The FA would have an option to hand over its FA Cup rights, too, should it want the top-flight’s sales team to take the full bundle of English club rights to market. The UK’s Saturday afternoon broadcast blackout would return but Premier League clubs would get eight live matches a season to sell abroad via their digital platforms, while all Premier League and Championship clubs would be able to show in-game highlights. No more than 27 games per club can be shown live in the UK - No, all of this sounds absolutely fine until you get to the bit about the 8 live games per season. That means the value of any central packages sold will decrease over time and again affects competition as the likes of Liverpool and United know this will put them currently at a huge competitive advantage to everyone else given their worldwide fanbases. This is most definitely the thin end of the wedge and eventually leads to clubs selling their own TV rights full stop, which leads you to a Spain type model where two clubs dominate everything forever. The beauty of our league is how competitive it is and anything which is done to try to affect the level of competition should be resisted wherever possible.

Disagree with a lot of that.

There is no benefit to removing 2 teams from the league other than freeing up more time for pre-season tours.

The League cup is a big source of revenue for EFL teams and gives them a decent chance of getting a good run/media exposure.

Why should a team battle a full season, only to have to play a premiere league team with vastly more resource. 9 times out of 10, it would become only 2 teams promoted.

Shortening the season would nullify any benefit of removing teams from the league.

Splitting the women's league smacks of abandoning them. No surprise the rs would be in Favour of this, seeing how they treated their women's team. The women's premiere league is growing massively thanks to the support it is getting.

The whole academies and loans thing is a scam to hoover up the talent and rent it back to the lower teams, without having to pay a penny up front for a club developing and nurturing future stars.

That leaves the money to clubs and charities. Given that these can be easily done with the existing setup, it renders the whole project big picture obsolete.

 

[toffeeblue9]

Disagree with a lot of that.

There is no benefit to removing 2 teams from the league other than freeing up more time for pre-season tours.

The League cup is a big source of revenue for EFL teams and gives them a decent chance of getting a good run/media exposure.

Why should a team battle a full season, only to have to play a premiere league team with vastly more resource. 9 times out of 10, it would become only 2 teams promoted.

Shortening the season would nullify any benefit of removing teams from the league.

Splitting the women's league smacks of abandoning them. No surprise the rs would be in Favour of this, seeing how they treated their women's team. The women's premiere league is growing massively thanks to the support it is getting.

The whole academies and loans thing is a scam to hoover up the talent and rent it back to the lower teams, without having to pay a penny up front for a club developing and nurturing future stars.

That leaves the money to clubs and charities. Given that these can be easily done with the existing setup, it renders the whole project big picture obsolete.

As I said at the start of the post mate, it's about compromise. I doubt that leaving things as they are is going to be acceptable, so it's about what does the least damage. I don't *like* much of it at all, but the rest of the league are going to have to make some concessions I think and as a starter for 10, that post is where I think I'd draw the line on stuff

 

[riddick]

I don't get scrapping the Charity Shield. Yes, it's slightly more glorified than a friendly but it's solely between 2 teams, it's one match and all proceeds go to charities. Why would anynone say "yeah, that needs to go"?

 

[Furey1878]

In short:

• Reduce league to 18 to alleviate hectic schedule - okay, not a terrible idea though it does increase an already tighter Championship schedule
• League Cup - Don't scrap, but maybe remove European qualified teams from the comp
• Charity Shield - No point in scrapping, it's a single game
• Distribute Wealth to lower leagues - yes absolutely, great idea, should defo be getting done especially right now
• Help keep away ticket prices down and subsidise away travel - again yes absolutely - should also make a cap for home games

Everything else, 9 (really 6) arbiters of decisions, eff that right off, increase the amount of players allowed out on loan, no, don't want to just use the lower leagues as feeder clubs.

 

[Furey1878]

I don't get scrapping the Charity Shield. Yes, it's slightly more glorified than a friendly but it's solely between 2 teams, it's one match and all proceeds go to charities. Why would anynone say "yeah, that needs to go"?

I know man, charity aside I don't see how it's bad for a teams pre-season, it's often 2 of the better teams getting a chance to gauge themselves agaisnt a potential rival.

But we both know the reality, it's one less game teams like Liverpool, United, City, Arsenal etc can't play in Asia and America and cash in extra money

 

[toffeeblue9]

I don't get scrapping the Charity Shield. Yes, it's slightly more glorified than a friendly but it's solely between 2 teams, it's one match and all proceeds go to charities. Why would anynone say "yeah, that needs to go"?

It's extra time that two of the top 6 can be off on money-spinning friendlies. I don't like it, but it's not going to kill anyone to get rid of it