The proposals themselves constitute an investigation by the Office for Fair Trading into the industry.
As structured empowering a clique of businesses is a recipe for anti competive trading in breach of Anti Trust Laws. There is a reason the NFL has special exemption from Anti Trust legislation in the USA.
The proposals need immediate referral to the OFT.
It does really matter whether anybody agrees to "the bribe" if it is illegal. It is illegal. Empowering 6 companies to control the structure and operation of its industry is by definition illegal.
For any organisation to even submit such proposals at a time of global crisis speaks to the integrity of the organisations. There is none. It is blatant opportunism and greed.
Mr Parry should resign immediately. Whatever his intent he had a duty of care in representing the interests of the EFL to ALL stakeholders in the game not a select few.
He has compromised his position to speak on behalf of the EFL.
Grapevine mate, you seem to have accidentally deleted the other 34 paragraphs of this post.
A weird scenario when they have to create a completely artificial "Big 9" to try and justify the Big 6 power grab. Especially as it's based on current consecutive seasons in the PL, rather than historical ones. Indeed the next longest serving club is Palace, followed by Leicester and then Burnley...
If it was done based on the 9 clubs who've been in the PL for the most number of seasons it would be
6 ever presents - Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, United, Liverpool Everton 26 seasons - Villa and Newcastle 25 seasons - West Ham
With City missing out as they've only been there for 24 season
As it says on the wiki link, 49 clubs have played in the Premier League since 1992. That’s over half the 92 - and that is what keeps people coming back for more, that your club might make it to the top table.
You remove that hope and competition and everyone might as well pack up and go home. Do these morons really think there’s a market for the “big six” to play each other 4 times a season with no promotion or relegation?
The proposals themselves constitute an investigation by the Office for Fair Trading into the industry.
As structured empowering a clique of businesses is a recipe for anti competive trading in breach of Anti Trust Laws. There is a reason the NFL has special exemption from Anti Trust legislation in the USA.
The proposals need immediate referral to the OFT.
It does really matter whether anybody agrees to "the bribe" if it is illegal. It is illegal. Empowering 6 companies to control the structure and operation of its industry is by definition illegal.
For any organisation to even submit such proposals at a time of global crisis speaks to the integrity of the organisations. There is none. It is blatant opportunism and greed.
Mr Parry should resign immediately. Whatever his intent he had a duty of care in representing the interests of the EFL to ALL stakeholders in the game not a select few.
He has compromised his position to speak on behalf of the EFL.
This - football, as a business, is open to competition. Anyone can set up a club, pour money into it, and get to the top of the tree. The recent salary cap is the first nail in the ability for teams to progress, this makes it much worse. It’s a blatant attempt to limit competition by making it almost impossible for anyone to break into the “big6”.
I notice someone said that one of the proposals is to kill parachute payments. That immediately means that any team who is at risk of relegation has to make sure they keep their payroll at a championship level - going down with PL wages and no parachute is the fast route to administration.
The idea is to have the top teams cling on to all the revenue, and make it impossible for the lower PL teams to take on the risk of making a realistic challenge. The chances of a promoted Championship team taking on the risk of player contracts needed to survive on the PL means they become yo-yo teams. But by not even attempting to stay in the PL, they can then distort the Championship by using their PL windfall to cycle up and down between the two leagues.
Leyton Orient owner thinks it is a good proposal. Lives in Boston USA.
As I said above, many of the smaller clubs aren't bothered by the power grab by the Big 6, as they presumably see all the PL and "rich" Championship clubs as being much the same anyway
Darragh Macanthony very positive about this on 5Live at the mo
I assume he's positive because of the money. All EFL clubs would get more money (championship clubs for example would get 22m instead of the current 7m, league one clubs i think he said would get 5m instead of 1.5m) so naturally he's going to be in favour, as i assume are most EFL clubs.
If you're a club like Rochdale or Forest Green, you're likely never going to make the premier league, so what Liverpool and United do is a world away and probably won't bother you. So most clubs would rather just have the extra money and let them get on with it.
I'd imagine it'll never get off the ground though, as i genuinely can't see 14 PL clubs voting in favour.
Interesting listening to Rick Parry talking to Simon Jordan on Talksport earlier. He said the PL offered the EFL 20% of the tv rights, way back at the formation of the PL but they turned it down. Never realised that.
I dont think 14 PL clubs would vote in favour of any restructuring of the PL anyhow. Perhaps its a way of forcing the Government into a EFL bail out.
Personally, I dont agree with reducing the teams in the PL to 18. I can sort of see why the league cup would be scrapped but I'd rather those clubs involved in European competition are just exempt from it. Having said that, I want Spurs to win the bloody thing this year. Double-edgd sword.
I'm all for a fairer distribution of tv monies but for how much longer will Sky/BT and the overseas providers be driving the income?
IMHO, we're not far away from club tv season tickets. Ignoring this abhorent £14.95 a game BS which has just been announced, clubs could easily sell a one off game for a fiver or £20pm model, sell it worldwide and make an absolute fortune. It would only serve to drive up the likes of Sky/BT/Amazon/Netflix to offer even more money for the rights...and on it goes.
If the clubs start controlling their IPR, their own tv rights, then how do you argue that the income made from it should be distributed further down the pyramid? It opens up a huge can of worms. It absolutely stinks.
I dont agree with any of it, full stop. I really dont. Football is irrevocably fucked.
(PS, can see Levy rubbing his hands together, with £ signs in his eyes, absolute weasel!)
I completely agree with this too and it's clearly what the big premier league clubs are aiming to do with one of the conditions in the new proposals saying they can sell off rights to 8 games per season.
If Man Utd modified MUTV and sold their live games worldwide on a monthly Netflix style subscription model for say 15 quid a month and had 3 million subscribers they'd be making 45m a month. That's 540m a year in tv money.
They'd probably actually get even a lot lot more than 3m subscribers given they have millions of fans worldwide, which shows you how much they could be making.
As someone on twitter said it just needs one of the excluded Prem clubs to propose the same financial plans but without the top six vote rigging elements and TV money grabbing.
The EFL gets its money, the big club get fewer games.
Still leaves two prem turkeys voting for an early Christmas and two league two clubs losing their league status though
Still leaves two prem turkeys voting for an early Christmas and two league two clubs losing their league status though
I think there’s enough in there for the Big 6 to see some of the proposals chipped away but still giving them the core of what they want - more European time, no more League Cup and nothing getting in the way of pre-season long haul jaunts. The extra tv money deals are probably just in to keep Sky / BT / Amazon in line.
Even with the extra money the EFL would gain I can still see many at the bottom of Div 2 gambling on it not being enough to keep all of their rivals afloat. If something doesn’t happen soon re payments there will be a number of clubs struggling to pay wages and bills. That would still probably leave enough scope for promoted teams to come up from below.
Henry is right - getting the turkeys to vote will be difficult but I don’t think Parry will struggle to get enough of an EFL backing for the proposals.
He makes some good points in this, we all know that the split between the Prem and the EFL is at the heart of much of English football's malaise.
I particularly liked his analogy for talking about Steve Parish's comments: "Quite apart from the assumption that Selhurst Park counts as a supermarket among corner shops, these are dreary arguments that do not merit earnest engagement. "
The other 14 need to come up with something, the likes of Parish wants to shut the door far more then the Glazers or Henry, and have nothing to say other then no and getting their friends in the press to complain. There is a lot to like in the proposals, there is also stuff not to like, but it's a negation and you're always going to start at the most extreme position.
League 1 and 2 will like as well, as it clips the wings of those in the Championship who thought they would be saved by the like of Parish etc.
This is a sensational story, but it's important to remember that that's all it is, a story. Why? Well the plan would be for PL to gift £350m to the EFL and the FA, and 25% of TV revenues in the future. In return, what do over half of PL clubs get, less power. Based on that alone it will never happen. And it shows a staggering level of arrogance from the big clubs that they think smaller PL clubs would go for it.
What the big clubs have done is take two separate issues and conflate them. PL voting rights and pumping money into the EFL to keep it alive are mutually exclusive issues. If the EFL had an ounce of sense (or integrity) they would've come out and said that if the money is there to save the EFL, then it should be given to the EFL for the benefit of all of English football. But, don't bring politics into it.
Of course, you don't get something for nothing in this world, but to blindy hand the balance of power in English football to a handful of clubs in return for a quick buck is an act of pure desperation from Rick Parry and the EFL.
One writer, David Conn, expressed support for parts of the plan but not all of it.
Yeah, the increased revenue each season, although this is really made up from the reduced number of teams and the abolition of parachute payments. The Guardian has no interest in lower league football, you can tell that by their coverage. They have previously run editorial supporting b-teams in the pyramid too, so I wouldn't expect any different. Your summary earlier in the thread was spot on btw.
This is neither true nor fair. The Guardian's coverage of Charlton's return from Selhurst and subsequent re-building was the most comprehensive of all the nationals. What a pity that you obvioulyy did not attend the AGM of CAST a few years ago (maybe 4) when Owen Gibson, then their chief football editor, was special guest, and he explained in great detail why they are unable to give lower league clubs the coverage they as journalists would like to. Basically it is because people no longer want to pay for newspapers (which ones do you regularly pay for?), so they rely on web advertising revenue which encourages click-bait driven stories. It was obvious to all concerned that Owen hated it.
I highly doubt that the Guardian wrote an "editorial" even discussing B teams in the pyramid, but am ready to be proved wrong.I can believe they might have quoted somebody supporting it, but that's their job, to show you which dickheads are driving such nonsense, and why, and let you as an adult make your judgement on it.
Football needs to take a step back - because prem clubs now have such a disproportionate amount of money they are now stockpiling young talent but don't have anywhere for them to play proper mens football, they want to create B teams to play in the lower divisions. The real solution is to apportion the money more fairly, re create the reserves leagues and do away with these ridiculous cups where u23 teams play against first teams. I will never go to a match like the one the other day where our first team is playing a brighton u23 side - ridiculous. I'll probably go to very few cup games now anyway until the whole attitude towards them changes - not interested in watching reserve football which is all it is now. Give the fa cup winner a champions league spot or restart the european cup winners cup or shut the whole thingh down. Sooner go and watch a park game than watch a match where both clubs are not putting their strongest sides out - its an insult to the fans.
Great post.
thanks - that's the first time anybody has been honest enough to say that about one of my posts (smiley face thing)
@PragueAddick so the sports editor basically said "we want to cover it, but we don't"! Sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. The Guardian/Observer are the only sports pages i read on a semi regular basis, and there is very little coverage apart from results tbf. The b team article was by amy lawrence if I remember correctly, but I could be wrong. Anyway, that's not the point, maybe I was a bit harsh on GNM. The point is, this is greed on a mass scale, dressed up as something to help the little guy. Luckily the rest of the Premier league are also greedy feckers (they don't want to lose their cut and the parachute payments), so it won't get passed, yet. But you just know something like this will get pushed through eventually.
He makes some good points in this, we all know that the split between the Prem and the EFL is at the heart of much of English football's malaise.
I particularly liked his analogy for talking about Steve Parish's comments: "Quite apart from the assumption that Selhurst Park counts as a supermarket among corner shops, these are dreary arguments that do not merit earnest engagement. "
Yes, quite clearly Selhurst Park is a supermarket amongst modern, clean premium hypermarkets.
This is a sensational story, but it's important to remember that that's all it is, a story. Why? Well the plan would be for PL to gift £350m to the EFL and the FA, and 25% of TV revenues in the future. In return, what do over half of PL clubs get, less power. Based on that alone it will never happen. And it shows a staggering level of arrogance from the big clubs that they think smaller PL clubs would go for it.
What the big clubs have done is take two separate issues and conflate them. PL voting rights and pumping money into the EFL to keep it alive are mutually exclusive issues. If the EFL had an ounce of sense (or integrity) they would've come out and said that if the money is there to save the EFL, then it should be given to the EFL for the benefit of all of English football. But, don't bring politics into it.
Of course, you don't get something for nothing in this world, but to blindly hand the balance of power in English football to a handful of clubs in return for a quick buck is an act of pure cynical greed from Rick Parry in the guise of the EFL.
Comments
From that headline is sounds like it looks like Levy, sounds like Levy, smells like Levy.
I'd like to know how it works, that has to be complete utter bollocks all round. Where does the rebate come from?
EDIT >> just googled, found some other articles. Absolute load of bollocks, what planet do they live on?
It's a real bummer when that happens.
You remove that hope and competition and everyone might as well pack up and go home. Do these morons really think there’s a market for the “big six” to play each other 4 times a season with no promotion or relegation?
Let us unite against the Big Six. (I'm going to start by telling Chevrolet that I am no longer buying my annual sports car).
If you're a club like Rochdale or Forest Green, you're likely never going to make the premier league, so what Liverpool and United do is a world away and probably won't bother you. So most clubs would rather just have the extra money and let them get on with it.
I'd imagine it'll never get off the ground though, as i genuinely can't see 14 PL clubs voting in favour.
If Man Utd modified MUTV and sold their live games worldwide on a monthly Netflix style subscription model for say 15 quid a month and had 3 million subscribers they'd be making 45m a month. That's 540m a year in tv money.
They'd probably actually get even a lot lot more than 3m subscribers given they have millions of fans worldwide, which shows you how much they could be making.
The EFL gets its money, the big club get fewer games.
Still leaves two prem turkeys voting for an early Christmas and two league two clubs losing their league status though
He lives in the USA too.
Even with the extra money the EFL would gain I can still see many at the bottom of Div 2 gambling on it not being enough to keep all of their rivals afloat. If something doesn’t happen soon re payments there will be a number of clubs struggling to pay wages and bills. That would still probably leave enough scope for promoted teams to come up from below.
I particularly liked his analogy for talking about Steve Parish's comments:
"Quite apart from the assumption that Selhurst Park counts as a supermarket among corner shops, these are dreary arguments that do not merit earnest engagement. "
League 1 and 2 will like as well, as it clips the wings of those in the Championship who thought they would be saved by the like of Parish etc.
What the big clubs have done is take two separate issues and conflate them. PL voting rights and pumping money into the EFL to keep it alive are mutually exclusive issues. If the EFL had an ounce of sense (or integrity) they would've come out and said that if the money is there to save the EFL, then it should be given to the EFL for the benefit of all of English football. But, don't bring politics into it.
Of course, you don't get something for nothing in this world, but to blindy hand the balance of power in English football to a handful of clubs in return for a quick buck is an act of pure desperation from Rick Parry and the EFL.
A view from the bottom
Ian Holloway talking sense.
I highly doubt that the Guardian wrote an "editorial" even discussing B teams in the pyramid, but am ready to be proved wrong.I can believe they might have quoted somebody supporting it, but that's their job, to show you which dickheads are driving such nonsense, and why, and let you as an adult make your judgement on it.
thanks - that's the first time anybody has been honest enough to say that about one of my posts (smiley face thing)
Brilliant as ever and there's even a shout out to Eltham