-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Project Big Picture
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
It was spot on
Thing is the clubs saying have a short term cash hit but no longer parachute payments is a snidey way of big clubs saying we want more long term cash. How does that help the game in the long term?
Surely the long term focus should be for all clubs including Spurs, dont spend money you dont have and play within your financial means. If you are borrowing money but paying players huge wages then you have your priorities hugely wrong.
This is not about the Pandemic, clubs have been going under for years due to miss management
It's not bad for us but if teams were to start selling TV rights individually I don't think we'd get anywhere near what Liverpool, UTD etc would get or even Chelsea or City so they could actually end up pulling further away.
inkpenspur
Allan Nielsen
Is the deal to the EFL a one off payment of £250M and the dropping of parachute payments or is it an annual payment of £250 to the EFL?
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
They take no notice of us and won't for this either
Denmark Spur
Edgar Davids
jts1882
Dean Richards
It would be funny if Henry and the Glazers have engineered a more generous deal than would have been considered otherwise. The 20 or 25% offer was surprisingly generous, but the disgust at it being blatantly offered in exchange for a the power grab could have consequences. It has left the PL clubs in the position of rejecting the help to protect themselves from loss of influence. To avoid the look of selfish self-interest they need to offer something similar.
Kandi1977
Terry Dyson
Who is she? Karen Brady?
But what does this say about the game? about the FA and the government?
- Lets be fudging clear, the PL clubs (private fudging businesses) have no obligation to lower leagues, grassroots development, etc.
- Sure they benefit, but certainly not to the level of money being talked about here
Look at the offer
- 72 clubs protected and given a income at equivalent of 25% of PL revenue (up from about 8% now)
- Cash to help FA, grassroots, women's game, etc.
- Model to help improve top level infrastructure in the game (vs. fudging taxpayers, i.e. you, paying for it)
And what's the devil's bargain?
- The top 6 (to a lesser extent 9) who have already invested billions into the game, get to protect themselves and their position
Here's the real question
- How is that any fudging different from where we are today? same top 6 for over 12 years, same top 4 for existence of PL era?
Get angry all you want
- The football league and game in general in UK is not going to get a better deal
So reject it, sit there and talk brick about preserving the game and the purity of it .. and watch dozens of clubs collapse and disappear in the next 12-18 months. watch grassroots football get less and less money.
elyid
Gerry Armstrong
That's an interesting point. I was very much against the deal when first reading it, but genuinely what is the alternative?
In an ideal world more money should have already filtered down since the PL era began, really the past 20 years has been one of decline for the rest of the leagues.
MKSpur
Christian Ziege
The issue as I see it is the offer to ‘grass roots’ was on the proviso that the 11 of the clubs remaining in the top league forego their voting rights, plus 2 positions of in the league and accept a series of other measures that assist the clubs with the 6 biggest revenue streams. I just don’t see how they even thought it would fly, the remainder of the premier league have no vested interest in propping up the the rest of the league to their own detriment and I was surprised to see championship clubs accepting this as it would mean two wealthier competitors in their league next year (although I do agree with the removal of parachute payment)
I know the game has moved on massively with the income and global exposure it gets but it is supposed to be sport at the end the day and handing over some of the governance of the league to teams based on their income isn’t going to help the integrity of the competition, even as it is we’ve had 6 different winners in the last 8 years including one that is not deemed worthy of voting rights in the new shake up.
Exactly .. turn down 25% of PL revenue? (from a place where they get 8%)
I understand the issue clearly, it's a deal with the devil .. but right now it looks like "take the deal and the entire English game has a chance to prosper" or "play indignant, mutter a bunch of brick about how it should be, get nothing and the game in general suffers, and the top 6 stay the fudging top 6 anyway"
All of this so we can pretend the bottom 9 clubs in the league have a fair shot and we have our integrity (so instead of allowing 9 clubs to determine the fate of 20, we have allowed 14 to determine the fate of 70+)
I'll say again, the PL and private businesses (the clubs) have no obligation to carry the lower leagues, the offer was extremely generous at 25% ..
But .. rar rar ..we showed them ...
MKSpur
Christian Ziege
Agree the offer is generous, it’s not the bottom 9 it’s the other 14 clubs that will be losing out. Teams have more money than others, why would the other 14 teams choose to give up their say and add 2 relegation places to the mix? There are plenty of things that can be reviewed but I am against a section of clubs holding official power, in perpetuity - at the end of the day it’s a football league table and this is just a point in time, sure the financial disparity is bigger than ever but Leicester have won the league not that long ago.
Fundamentally I don’t see how 2 or even 6 clubs can make an offer to the rest of the pyramid without the prior agreement or discussion with the parties who will both contribute to and be impacted by this, unless it is on the proviso if it’s not accepted they will leave the organisation. If the prem is going to contribute 17% more to the league then by all means see if there is a way the league can find ways to recoup the money through new revenue streams, but this doesn’t need to impact voting rights.
Not sure what the ‘we showed them bit means’ I’m just expressing that I don’t understand how this offer was expected to land.
It's a power grab nothing more, in a few years when this is over those clubs can change the rules by themslves to reduce the money back down to 10% or whatever it is now. I don't know what they were even thinking releasing it - no way was it ever getting through. Some of the items are just plain bizarre like a veto over who's allowed to own a club - heaven forbid a billionaire wants to spend his way to the title.
I didn't realise the FA had a golden share so can block this type of thing anyway.
I didn't realise the FA had a golden share so can block this type of thing anyway.
The last bit wasn't aimed at you, it was at the general vibe of the media and response at the proposal being rejected .. without a fudging clue of a long term solution
Of course it is a power grab, at the cost of 25% of ~2.5B/yr (2018 numbers)
So lets say -> 625M/yr for 5 years, so 3.1B investment into lower leagues, even if they cut that back to 8% (current value) in 5 years, do you see another alternative that will give the football ladder three billion dollars in next 5 years?
The league already has rules around ownership btw (qualified owner), it's not just another billionaire but other "pretenders" who may put a club a risk of administration ..
elyid
Gerry Armstrong
The flip side is that the clubs will end up relying on the 25% of PL revenue to survive, essentially they are then indirectly owned by the top 6.
[Insert quote about the power to destroy something is total power over it]
But on the plus side:
Clubs would be financially secure indefinitly, have money for proper ground maintenance, better players (albeit a lot on loan from the PL), better facilities and probably cheaper tickets for fans.
I think it's more nuanced that it first appeared, a lot of clubs are currently fudged and it would raise standards across the board. If they could get the 25% to be set as a minimum forever it would prob be worth it.
Would be interesting to have a crystal ball and see how it would play out.