From The Telegraph. The Stanley Chairman nails it.
Support for Project Big Picture was severing in the English Football League on Wednesday morning after two League One clubs challenged claims that the plan had their “unanimous” backing.
Asked directly to quantify support for the idea following a meeting on Tuesday clubs, Moxey said: “I would say in League One unanimous.” Moxey did also say that there was “virtual complete support” and that “there were one or two questions about processes and some of the detail but complete support for the principle.”
Lincoln chairman Clive Nates has now challenged this claim. “Was he asleep when I expressed my grave concerns at the meeting over this diabolical power grab,” he said. “I am vehemently against this deal in its present form. The acceptance of this deal without question by so many clubs is deeply concerning.”
Asked if his main objection related to the voting rights, which would hand huge decision-making to a two-thirds majority of nine long-standing Premier League clubs, he said: “Nothing else matters. Ultimately with total control the focus will be on more and more games in Europe and around the world. The Premier League will ultimately become an uncompetitive sideshow which will dramatically affect the future revenues that EFL clubs are so seduced by.”
Accrington Stanley, another League One club, also outlined their opposition.
“The EFL is being used to support the indefensible - namely the shafting of two thirds of the Premier League,” said Accrington Stanley chairman Andy Holt. “It is also being used by these two clubs [Liverpool and Manchester United] to break down the FA plan on imported kids. It is also being used by the two clubs to break the Saturday blackout and stream matches. [Rick] Parry was a pawn in their game. Yes, we want proper distribution: but not if it shafts 14 Premier League clubs.
"I would prefer it done though an independent regulator. I think the Premier League's the cause of a lot of the ills in football.”
If they want to go, let's help them pack up and move on. If they want to stay, make them apologise. We have seen their threats, we have seen them offer a rescue pan to the EFL with one hand and a clenched fist power grab with the other. We have seen them for what they are. The question now should be, do we want them anymore?
There is, in reality, nowhere for them to go if they quit. They could join the EFL, but I am not sure Manchester United vs Wycombe Wanderers and Liverpool vs Rotherham holds much appeal or makes any sense to their broadcast partners while Everton, Wolves, Aston Villa, Leeds United, Newcastle, Leicester City and the rest remain in the top flight.
If they want to pursue their dream of a European Super League let them try find others to join them from the continent because it will be a while until they get enough teams and they can rot while they wait.
How can they qualify for the Champions League next season if they are not in the Premier League anymore? What will their shareholders think about that? They are not the only side in this civil war who can make threats. The Football Association can deny them permission to compete in Uefa competitions if they want to play tough. I wonder how long their star players will be willing to wait around then?
What they should be doing now is festering on the consequences of their ugly collective ambition because, if they were to leave, the only realistic option, in the short and medium term, is a six-club competition run by and for themselves.
Let them crack on and do it. One of this self-interested cartel can win the league each year, they can be certain of that. They deserve each other’s company. Let them play in an exhibition tournament, touring it around the globe like a warped version of the Harlem Globetrotters.
Let them seek their own television deals, let them try and persuade the richest broadcasters in the world that they do not need the rest of English football to attract a global television audience.
Let them play each other from September to May, the big boys going at each other over and over again for months on end. Let them play in their own competition, where Manchester United can reacquaint themselves with Liverpool roughly once every five weeks.
Let them create a league where the fixtures come round with mundane regularity. Let their dream be to play in football’s equivalent of an American basketball division. 40 games a season against five different opponents. Let them go on tours to the Middle East, the Far East, South America, North America, Australasia and even Antarctica if they so wish.
Let them broadcast every single game on their own websites, let them put every single player up for an interview with their in house media, let them release as many fly-on-the-wall documentaries as they desire. One for each club - glossy, controlled and sanitised - every single year and see how quickly the novelty wears off.
And let the rest of us get on with watching the Premier League, free from their omnipotence, free from their greed.
The results will be far less predictable, the action no less intense, the interest just as widespread, perhaps even more so when you have different teams competing for silverware, different towns and cities celebrating the sort of success they are so intent on denying them their twisted scheme.
There might well be less money sloshing around the Premier League if they go, but they won't. And if they do go, simply promote the top six clubs from the Championship for next season and replace them. They will miss the Premier League when they see how it thrives without them. You can be sure of that. Meanwhile, everyone else - Premier League, Government and the Football Association - can focus on agreeing and delivering a rescue package for the EFL clubs facing financial oblivion in this global pandemic.
Offer them salvation without being forced to back this odious attempt by a group of billionaires to control the top level of English football forever more.
The majority of EFL owners may well back Project Big Picture but they are reacting like a loved one would respond to a ransom note. They all want something they love to survive and any price seems worth paying. Spare them that Hobson's choice and cut the Big Six adrift instead if we must.
There is a wonderful Geordie send-off given to someone who leaves an argument they have already lost. Off you ****. It has never felt more apt.
The Premier
League clubs have kicked Project Big Picture into the long grass and
agreed instead to hold an urgent strategy review involving all 20
members, as well as making a new bail-out offer to the EFL.
An
emergency meeting of the 20 clubs called after last weekend’s
announcement of the Project’s aims to revolutionise English football —
put forward by Liverpool and Manchester United and backed by the EFL
chairman Rick Parry — has effectively killed off the plan at birth.
It is understood that the meeting instead decided to
commission a strategy review that would involve all 20 clubs rather
than just the elite to plan for the future, with the understanding that
it would take place promptly.
There
was also an agreement to put together a rescue package for the EFL,
with the offer including an option for the bail-out funding only to go
to the League One and League Two clubs. That, however, could still be
vetoed by the Championship clubs. As reported by The Times last
week, the EFL had rejected an offer of a grant of less than £50 million
and a £100 million loan — all with conditions attached.It
had been expected that there would be some fiery exchanges aimed at the
Liverpool and Manchester United representatives but according to one
club executive in the meeting it was “civilised”. However, there was
irritation about the role of Parry in Project Big Picture, with some
clubs suggesting he had attempted to destabilise the Premier League.The
project had won some EFL clubs’ support by promising 25 per cent of
Premier League TV revenue with the three lower divisions. At least 14 of
the 20 top-flight clubs were opposed, however, possibly some of the
‘big six’ clubs too, according to Premier League insiders.The
fans’ trusts of the big six clubs had also united to object to the
Project’s plans, stating they were “totally opposed to concentrating
power in the hands of six billionaire owners and departing from the one
club, one vote and collective ethos of the Premier League”.The
FA chairman Greg Clarke had also spoken out, warning Liverpool and
Manchester United that the governing body would use its special powers
to prevent a breakaway league and stop them playing in the Champions
League.Clarke
said the FA would use its “special share” in the Premier League to
protect “the best interests of the game” and pointed out the FA
nominates which leagues and clubs qualify for European competition. He
confirmed that the threat of a breakaway league — understood to have
been suggested for the big six Premier League clubs to join the EFL —
had been raised in discussions between the two clubs and Parry.Project Big Picture has been driven by Liverpool’s owner John Henry and president Mike Gordon, along with Manchester United’s co-owner Joel Glazer,
but none of the trio faced the music at the Premier League meeting,
which was held by video conference. Instead, Liverpool’s chairman Tom
Werner and chief executive Billy Hogan took part, along with United’s
executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward.Clarke
confirmed yesterday in a statement that he had taken part in early
talks with the group around fixture congestion, with the knowledge of
senior FA board members and the chief executive.He
said: “However, in late spring, when the principal aim of these
discussions became the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of
a few clubs with a breakaway league mooted as a threat, I of course,
discontinued my involvement and counselled a more consensus-based
approach involving all Premier League clubs and its chair and CEO. Our
game needs to continually seek to improve but benefits need to be
shared.“We,
the FA Board and Council, have to ensure that any changes would be to
the long-term benefit of the whole of football and we have substantial
controls to help ensure that the best interests of the game are served
by any new proposals.“In
addition, to the Special Share in the Premier League, which prevents
certain changes being made to the constitution without the FA’s consent,
it is also the FA’s responsibility to sanction competitions in England —
including any proposed new competition — as well as being responsible
for licensing clubs, through Uefa, to play in Europe. Additionally, Uefa
look to us to nominate the league, and therefore the clubs, that will
play in their competitions.”In
a thinly veiled warning against Liverpool, United and Parry, Clarke
added: “Let’s continue to work together to determine what is best for
English football, with full dialogue between all key stakeholders.
However, there is more to our game than economics. Change must benefit
clubs, fans and players; not just selective balance sheets. In these
difficult times unity, transparency and common purpose must override the
interests of the few.”The Times
has seen the full project proposals and the documents outline the
incredible extent of the power and money that would be given to the top
sides.Premier
League clubs would be allowed to show Saturday 3pm matches to British
viewers on their own TV channels and digital platforms if the
broadcast blackout is lifted permanently, in what would be another
significant money-making opportunity for the big clubs.The
big six clubs would not only dominate the voting rights in the Premier
League — their powers would also extend to setting a salary cap in the
Championship and wielding a veto over the fixture calendar in the second
tier of English football.
NEW: Premier League clubs reject Project Big Picture
- clubs agree prompt strategy review involving all 20 clubs not just 2
- new bail-out offer for EFL agreed, possibly only for League One and League Two clubs
- full story:
It was never going to happen, the rest of the PL were never going to vote in favour.
And as others have said where would the big 6 break away to? They won't form their own league as no one would be interested in a 6 team league.
A European super league would take years of planning and another 14 clubs from across Europe to all decide to leave their national leagues. Plus with the imminent expansion of the Champions league is there even an appetite for a european super league any more?
Greed, greed and greed drives this plan. Not a love or care for the game of football. It makes me sick that they tried to wrap up the money for the EFL as a sweetener, yeah we all believe that.
Blistering attack from Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail (yes I know)
MARTIN SAMUEL: A complete lack of trust caused the death of Project Big Carve-up, as angry rivals turned on Premier League's Big Two... now their idea has failed, let's see just how devoted these US venture capitalists are to the English pyramid
The Big Six have always made power plays but this was a requisition too far
Project Big Picture was carved up because other top-flight clubs felt betrayed
And who could blame them? They didn't even have the courtesy to come through the front door with their ultimatums
The idea that John Henry worried for the football pyramid's fate is laughable tosh
We'll really see how much the US venture capitalists care now the project is dead
It was Everton who were the first to mention the T word. Trust. There wasn't a lot of it in the room, as the authors of Project Big Carve-up faced their fellow Premier League shareholders.
By the afternoon, a letter had been drafted suggesting a united front, with all 20 clubs as signatories. The project was dead, replaced by a review in which the entire Premier League, not just its most-entitled members, would contribute. But let's not pretend. It won't be the same.
The Big Six have been meeting in secret for some time now, and every club knew that. They had grown accustomed to the threats and power plays that resulted, always about more money and more power, but this was a requisition too far. There was genuine anger in the room, a very real sense of betrayal.
Martin Semmens, chief executive of Southampton, said he had not even seen the document that chairmen in the lower divisions were going to be voting on. A number of participants drove home the message that no respect had been shown to the clubs – the shareholders, as they are known – the league or the supporters. They were right. The Big Six had not even possessed the courtesy to come through the front door with their ultimatums.
One exchange saw Christian Purslow, a former managing director of Liverpool, but now with Aston Villa, directly challenge Tom Werner, the current Liverpool chairman. He pointed out that this week was the tenth anniversary of the Fenway Sports Group takeover and that, one way or another, it had gone rather well. The thrust of the rest of the address can be summed up in a pithy phrase: and this is how you repay us?
There has been some laughable tosh circulating this week, not least the idea that John Henry of Liverpool has been sat across the Atlantic deeply worried about the fate of the English football pyramid. That is Rick Parry's brief and, by all accounts, he even kept a straight face delivering it, so on the bright side he may be able to retrain for the stage if his lengthy career harming English football is over.
It was this concern for the little guys, apparently that drove Henry towards a proposal that would divert more money to the EFL – although not necessarily more of his, once the many strings were attached – and all he wanted in return was to seize control of every element of English football, across four divisions, in perpetuity.
If he didn't get this, Henry was so anxious for the well-being of the pyramid, that he was going to lead his club, and several others, away from it to form a European Super League, taking large swathes of revenue with them. Because they care.
Unsurprisingly, then, some in the room were sceptical about motivation. Werner insisted that Project Big Swag Bag was not a firm set of proposals more a broad list of ideas. It was then pointed out that, if this was the case, why did he take it to the chairman of another league, and not his own?
And why was that chairman putting it before his clubs to vote on, as if it were finite? Seemed rather presumptuous if Liverpool and Manchester United had only been spit-balling; or was there something they were not telling everybody? After all, it wouldn't be the first time.
Back to the issue of trust and Greg Clarke, chairman of the Football Association, admitted being party to the discussions from an early stage, but walking away when it became clear that a breakaway was being entertained. He should have blown the whistle, then, of course.
Clarke placed the blame for the worst of recent developments on Parry, who he clearly viewed as the agitator in all this. Yes, he had willing accomplices, but he is most certainly culpable. In lieu of structured proposals club by club, Parry plucked a random figure of £250m from the air.
Instead of bringing together football's disparate elements – clubs that have little in common beside pitch dimensions and a ball – he has spread disharmony and mistrust.
There was even talk of whether it was possible to by-pass the EFL chairman in future conversations about rescue packages for lower league clubs.
Ed Woodward, of Manchester United, counselled against that, no doubt to the biggest collective eye roll since the Egremont Crab Fair Gurning World Championships.
Where this leaves Parry is another matter. This was nothing short of an attempted coup and it failed. The Big Six became a Big Two very early in the meeting as four read the room and tiptoed softly away from the chief conspirators.
Liverpool and Manchester United don't seem too taken with Plan B, either, which would see them depart for the EFL to mount a reverse takeover; or as it is known in business circles, engage in a wanton act of commercial suicide.
The good news? There will be a review, hopefully the proper examination of football's finances that the game needs. And if it ends with more money redirected to the lower leagues in a way that makes the pyramid sustainable, that is for the best, too.
The old division of broadcast revenue, pre-Premier League – 50 per cent for tier one, 25 per cent for tier two, 12.5 per cent for tiers three and four – is gone for good, sadly. Project What's-in-it-for-me? was proposing 25 per cent handed down, and that would be healthy.
Yet so, too, would a levy per club, perhaps split according to domestic earnings. Ten per cent from Liverpool's pot last season would work out as £17.46m; from Manchester United £14.25m; from Aston Villa £10.61m. Then we'd see how devoted these American venture capitalists are to football's lovely pyramid.
Is there any evidence that the other 4 clubs in the big 6 were pushing this?
Obviously they wouldn't have complained had it gone through, but wasn't this driven by Liverpool and United? I've not seen anything that says the other 4 were actively seeking it.
I think someone needs to put a housing analogy together
I’ve been struggling a bit with this one, but here goes …
Many years ago a group of friends got together and built a house. Over the years the house was extended and more people came and lived with them. To maintain order in the house each room had an equal vote but, owing to a lack of space, a number of the new arrivals and not-so-well-off people had to share rooms so they didn’t have as much a say in proceedings as those in the big rooms.
Over time people moved from room to room, sometimes going to a bigger room, sometimes going back to a shared smaller one; some people left the house to be replaced with new people.
Then, about 30 years ago, some of the people decided they didn’t want to carry on sharing the kitchen and bathroom with the others so they built a new shiny building next door for their own use. After they moved out there was more room in the original house so the remaining tenants were able to have a room each and so had an equal vote in that house. There was still movement between rooms and even between buildings but some of those in the new house were getting a bit snobby and didn’t really want the great unwashed from across the path joining them; normally new arrivals were kicked out again the following year. They certainly weren’t too keen on still paying some of the upkeep of the old house.
In recent years the residents of the old house have fallen on hard times and have been struggling to pay the rent and the bills; the house has fallen into a bit of a state. The big house doesn’t really want to help them out any more as they’d rather play with their European pen pals instead of their next door neighbours.
What the big house wants to do is dig up the path between the two buildings and build a big wall around their building with a security gate to stop anyone getting in. They’ve offered to pay the leccy bill in the old house for the next couple of years but probably only if the old house looks after the big house’s kids in their rooms.
I think the big house’s scheme might have fallen foul of the Planning Committee but they’ll no doubt tweak them slightly, probably after seeing a new architect, and they’ll get waved through.
EXCLUSIVE: Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman slams EFL counterpart Rick Parry over bailout negotiations and claims he is trying to 'create division' among top-flight clubs after fallout of doomed Project Big Picture
Premier League chairman has hit out at EFL chief Rick Parry in an explosive letter
Hoffman claims that Parry is refusing to engage over bailout talks with the EFL
He says this is direct result of Parry's failed attempt of Project Big Picture
Hoffman also accuses of Parry trying to 'create division' among the top 20 clubs
Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman has accused his EFL counterpart Rick Parry of jeopardising a bailout for the lower divisions as the top-flight's conflict with the lower divisions continued.
In an explosive letter sent to the EFL after Wednesday's meeting of the 20 Premier League clubs Hoffman claims that Parry has refused to engage in negotiations regarding the proposed bailout, due to his secret talks with Liverpool and Manchester United over Project Big Picture.
Hoffman goes on to accuse Parry of deliberately seeking to create division among the top 20 clubs, an incendiary claim that raises real questions over whether the Premier League and EFL can continue to work together.
+6
Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman has hit out at the EFL's Rick Parry in an explosive letter
+6
Hoffman claims that EFL chairman Parry (right) is refusing to engage with the Premier League over bailout negotiations following the fallout of the failed Project Big Picture
The letter from Hoffman outlines the terms of the Premier League's bailout offer - a £20million grant to clubs in League One and Two with the possibility of a further £30m in loans to follow - but the newly appointed chairman also takes aim at Parry.
The EFL clubs will discuss the offer at divisional meetings on Thursday afternoon, but are minded to reject it initially as they claim it is insufficient and are unhappy that the Championship clubs have been excluded.
'In times of crisis it is even more important that we work together rather than create division,' Hoffman writes.
'Despite Rick's actions on a number of matters which have deliberately created division and put in jeopardy a much-needed rescue package for EFL clubs, the Premier League today gained Club approval for an offer for League One and League Two clubs.'
The missive from Hoffman outlines the terms of the Premier League's bailout offer - a £20million grant to clubs in League One and Two but nothing for the Championship
Hoffman's letter also confirms Sportsmail's story from earlier this week that the EFL have already rejected the first bailout offer - without putting it to the clubs - of a £40m grant and £110m in loans due to the conditions attached.
'Rick Parry did not engage with us,' Hoffman writes.
'However, on 13 October we received feedback of our funding offer from Dave Baldwin (who has been nothing but professional throughout). He stated that the caveats applied against both the proposed loan and grant funds were not something the EFL Board could put before your clubs.'
The Price of Football podcast (Kieran Maguire and his Stripey Nigel mate) have asked why the media isn't all over the story last week that the EFL had received a £375m investment offer from an American private equity fund. All that is known is that they were discussing it, including the level of autonomous control the EFL would retain, and then they suddenly stopped. Last Friday. Does anyone think the timing of that would be a coincidence? You know, like the CEO's resignation was?
Kieran made the point that the EFL had shared no details whatsoever with its member clubs. Given what came forward from the FAPL, that seems completely inexcusable. he further made the point that the EFL had earlier in the year rejected a proposal that the EFL should have three independent directors ideally QCs, to provide oversight.
The Price of Football podcast (Kieran Maguire and his Stripey Nigel mate) have asked why the media isn't all over the story last week that the EFL had received a £375m investment offer from an American private equity fund. All that is known is that they were discussing it, including the level of autonomous control the EFL would retain, and then they suddenly stopped. Last Friday. Does anyone think the timing of that would be a coincidence? You know, like the CEO's resignation was?
Kieran made the point that the EFL had shared no details whatsoever with its member clubs. Given what came forward from the FAPL, that seems completely inexcusable. he further made the point that the EFL had earlier in the year rejected a proposal that the EFL should have three independent directors ideally QCs, to provide oversight.
Parry really has to resign, forthwith.
Definitely has to go, playing his own game here. It’s not on.
Call for an independent regulator from group called 'Saving our beautiful Game' led by Gary Neville, Dennis Lewis and David Bernstein. Good luck with that!
I doubt the Premier League will give the Championship money until they see some financial discipline in that division, and the Football League won't accept help unless it includes the Championship for fear of a breakaway
If they want to go, let's help them pack up and move on. If they want to stay, make them apologise. We have seen their threats, we have seen them offer a rescue pan to the EFL with one hand and a clenched fist power grab with the other. We have seen them for what they are. The question now should be, do we want them anymore?
There is, in reality, nowhere for them to go if they quit. They could join the EFL, but I am not sure Manchester United vs Wycombe Wanderers and Liverpool vs Rotherham holds much appeal or makes any sense to their broadcast partners while Everton, Wolves, Aston Villa, Leeds United, Newcastle, Leicester City and the rest remain in the top flight.
If they want to pursue their dream of a European Super League let them try find others to join them from the continent because it will be a while until they get enough teams and they can rot while they wait.
How can they qualify for the Champions League next season if they are not in the Premier League anymore? What will their shareholders think about that? They are not the only side in this civil war who can make threats. The Football Association can deny them permission to compete in Uefa competitions if they want to play tough. I wonder how long their star players will be willing to wait around then?
What they should be doing now is festering on the consequences of their ugly collective ambition because, if they were to leave, the only realistic option, in the short and medium term, is a six-club competition run by and for themselves.
Let them crack on and do it. One of this self-interested cartel can win the league each year, they can be certain of that. They deserve each other’s company. Let them play in an exhibition tournament, touring it around the globe like a warped version of the Harlem Globetrotters.
Let them seek their own television deals, let them try and persuade the richest broadcasters in the world that they do not need the rest of English football to attract a global television audience.
Let them play each other from September to May, the big boys going at each other over and over again for months on end. Let them play in their own competition, where Manchester United can reacquaint themselves with Liverpool roughly once every five weeks.
Let them create a league where the fixtures come round with mundane regularity. Let their dream be to play in football’s equivalent of an American basketball division. 40 games a season against five different opponents. Let them go on tours to the Middle East, the Far East, South America, North America, Australasia and even Antarctica if they so wish.
Let them broadcast every single game on their own websites, let them put every single player up for an interview with their in house media, let them release as many fly-on-the-wall documentaries as they desire. One for each club - glossy, controlled and sanitised - every single year and see how quickly the novelty wears off.
And let the rest of us get on with watching the Premier League, free from their omnipotence, free from their greed.
The results will be far less predictable, the action no less intense, the interest just as widespread, perhaps even more so when you have different teams competing for silverware, different towns and cities celebrating the sort of success they are so intent on denying them their twisted scheme.
There might well be less money sloshing around the Premier League if they go, but they won't. And if they do go, simply promote the top six clubs from the Championship for next season and replace them. They will miss the Premier League when they see how it thrives without them. You can be sure of that. Meanwhile, everyone else - Premier League, Government and the Football Association - can focus on agreeing and delivering a rescue package for the EFL clubs facing financial oblivion in this global pandemic.
Offer them salvation without being forced to back this odious attempt by a group of billionaires to control the top level of English football forever more.
The majority of EFL owners may well back Project Big Picture but they are reacting like a loved one would respond to a ransom note. They all want something they love to survive and any price seems worth paying. Spare them that Hobson's choice and cut the Big Six adrift instead if we must.
There is a wonderful Geordie send-off given to someone who leaves an argument they have already lost. Off you ****. It has never felt more apt.
More or less what I have been saying for nearly thirty years. Only I said it in far fewer words...
It was a shame that quest highlights were mainly in favour of what Liverpool and man u were doing. Saying it was similar to a celebrity highlighting a good cause. Also that parry was doing it for the good of the lower leagues. Then again what do you expect from the N.irish presenter who supports man u and Ashton who has been hit in the head more times than my man Jake lamotta.
Comments
From The Telegraph. The Stanley Chairman nails it.
Support for Project Big Picture was severing in the English Football League on Wednesday morning after two League One clubs challenged claims that the plan had their “unanimous” backing.
Jez Moxey, the chief executive of Burton Albion and also an EFL board member, had said on Tuesday that there was “unanimous” League One support for a proposal that would ensure an immediate £250 million Premier League bailout to the EFL but hand huge potential voting power to the ‘Big Six’ clubs.
Asked directly to quantify support for the idea following a meeting on Tuesday clubs, Moxey said: “I would say in League One unanimous.” Moxey did also say that there was “virtual complete support” and that “there were one or two questions about processes and some of the detail but complete support for the principle.”
Lincoln chairman Clive Nates has now challenged this claim. “Was he asleep when I expressed my grave concerns at the meeting over this diabolical power grab,” he said. “I am vehemently against this deal in its present form. The acceptance of this deal without question by so many clubs is deeply concerning.”
Accrington Stanley, another League One club, also outlined their opposition.
“The EFL is being used to support the indefensible - namely the shafting of two thirds of the Premier League,” said Accrington Stanley chairman Andy Holt. “It is also being used by these two clubs [Liverpool and Manchester United] to break down the FA plan on imported kids. It is also being used by the two clubs to break the Saturday blackout and stream matches. [Rick] Parry was a pawn in their game. Yes, we want proper distribution: but not if it shafts 14 Premier League clubs.
"I would prefer it done though an independent regulator. I think the Premier League's the cause of a lot of the ills in football.”
If the self-styled Big Six want to break away from the rest of the Premier League, let them go. Let them make good on their threats, rip up the ransom note, shove it down their throats and give them a kick up the backside to help them on their way.
If they want to go, let's help them pack up and move on. If they want to stay, make them apologise. We have seen their threats, we have seen them offer a rescue pan to the EFL with one hand and a clenched fist power grab with the other. We have seen them for what they are. The question now should be, do we want them anymore?
When you threaten something, it is always best to know you can go through with it. The Big Six are bluffing so hammer that home. They need the Premier League, even as they launch their shameless attempt to seize total control of it.
There is, in reality, nowhere for them to go if they quit. They could join the EFL, but I am not sure Manchester United vs Wycombe Wanderers and Liverpool vs Rotherham holds much appeal or makes any sense to their broadcast partners while Everton, Wolves, Aston Villa, Leeds United, Newcastle, Leicester City and the rest remain in the top flight.
How can they qualify for the Champions League next season if they are not in the Premier League anymore? What will their shareholders think about that? They are not the only side in this civil war who can make threats. The Football Association can deny them permission to compete in Uefa competitions if they want to play tough. I wonder how long their star players will be willing to wait around then?
What they should be doing now is festering on the consequences of their ugly collective ambition because, if they were to leave, the only realistic option, in the short and medium term, is a six-club competition run by and for themselves.
Let them crack on and do it. One of this self-interested cartel can win the league each year, they can be certain of that. They deserve each other’s company. Let them play in an exhibition tournament, touring it around the globe like a warped version of the Harlem Globetrotters.
Let them seek their own television deals, let them try and persuade the richest broadcasters in the world that they do not need the rest of English football to attract a global television audience.
Let them play each other from September to May, the big boys going at each other over and over again for months on end. Let them play in their own competition, where Manchester United can reacquaint themselves with Liverpool roughly once every five weeks.
Let them create a league where the fixtures come round with mundane regularity. Let their dream be to play in football’s equivalent of an American basketball division. 40 games a season against five different opponents. Let them go on tours to the Middle East, the Far East, South America, North America, Australasia and even Antarctica if they so wish.
Let them broadcast every single game on their own websites, let them put every single player up for an interview with their in house media, let them release as many fly-on-the-wall documentaries as they desire. One for each club - glossy, controlled and sanitised - every single year and see how quickly the novelty wears off.
And let the rest of us get on with watching the Premier League, free from their omnipotence, free from their greed.
The results will be far less predictable, the action no less intense, the interest just as widespread, perhaps even more so when you have different teams competing for silverware, different towns and cities celebrating the sort of success they are so intent on denying them their twisted scheme.
There might well be less money sloshing around the Premier League if they go, but they won't. And if they do go, simply promote the top six clubs from the Championship for next season and replace them. They will miss the Premier League when they see how it thrives without them. You can be sure of that. Meanwhile, everyone else - Premier League, Government and the Football Association - can focus on agreeing and delivering a rescue package for the EFL clubs facing financial oblivion in this global pandemic.
Offer them salvation without being forced to back this odious attempt by a group of billionaires to control the top level of English football forever more.
The majority of EFL owners may well back Project Big Picture but they are reacting like a loved one would respond to a ransom note. They all want something they love to survive and any price seems worth paying. Spare them that Hobson's choice and cut the Big Six adrift instead if we must.
There is a wonderful Geordie send-off given to someone who leaves an argument they have already lost. Off you ****. It has never felt more apt.
The Premier League clubs have kicked Project Big Picture into the long grass and agreed instead to hold an urgent strategy review involving all 20 members, as well as making a new bail-out offer to the EFL.
An emergency meeting of the 20 clubs called after last weekend’s announcement of the Project’s aims to revolutionise English football — put forward by Liverpool and Manchester United and backed by the EFL chairman Rick Parry — has effectively killed off the plan at birth.
It would have handed all voting powers to the top teams in the Premier League and hugely increased their financial income but ran up against opposition from a large majority of the top-flight clubs.
It is understood that the meeting instead decided to commission a strategy review that would involve all 20 clubs rather than just the elite to plan for the future, with the understanding that it would take place promptly.
There was also an agreement to put together a rescue package for the EFL, with the offer including an option for the bail-out funding only to go to the League One and League Two clubs. That, however, could still be vetoed by the Championship clubs. As reported by The Times last week, the EFL had rejected an offer of a grant of less than £50 million and a £100 million loan — all with conditions attached.It had been expected that there would be some fiery exchanges aimed at the Liverpool and Manchester United representatives but according to one club executive in the meeting it was “civilised”. However, there was irritation about the role of Parry in Project Big Picture, with some clubs suggesting he had attempted to destabilise the Premier League.The project had won some EFL clubs’ support by promising 25 per cent of Premier League TV revenue with the three lower divisions. At least 14 of the 20 top-flight clubs were opposed, however, possibly some of the ‘big six’ clubs too, according to Premier League insiders.The fans’ trusts of the big six clubs had also united to object to the Project’s plans, stating they were “totally opposed to concentrating power in the hands of six billionaire owners and departing from the one club, one vote and collective ethos of the Premier League”.The FA chairman Greg Clarke had also spoken out, warning Liverpool and Manchester United that the governing body would use its special powers to prevent a breakaway league and stop them playing in the Champions League.Clarke said the FA would use its “special share” in the Premier League to protect “the best interests of the game” and pointed out the FA nominates which leagues and clubs qualify for European competition. He confirmed that the threat of a breakaway league — understood to have been suggested for the big six Premier League clubs to join the EFL — had been raised in discussions between the two clubs and Parry.Project Big Picture has been driven by Liverpool’s owner John Henry and president Mike Gordon, along with Manchester United’s co-owner Joel Glazer, but none of the trio faced the music at the Premier League meeting, which was held by video conference. Instead, Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner and chief executive Billy Hogan took part, along with United’s executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward.Clarke confirmed yesterday in a statement that he had taken part in early talks with the group around fixture congestion, with the knowledge of senior FA board members and the chief executive.He said: “However, in late spring, when the principal aim of these discussions became the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few clubs with a breakaway league mooted as a threat, I of course, discontinued my involvement and counselled a more consensus-based approach involving all Premier League clubs and its chair and CEO. Our game needs to continually seek to improve but benefits need to be shared.“We, the FA Board and Council, have to ensure that any changes would be to the long-term benefit of the whole of football and we have substantial controls to help ensure that the best interests of the game are served by any new proposals.“In addition, to the Special Share in the Premier League, which prevents certain changes being made to the constitution without the FA’s consent, it is also the FA’s responsibility to sanction competitions in England — including any proposed new competition — as well as being responsible for licensing clubs, through Uefa, to play in Europe. Additionally, Uefa look to us to nominate the league, and therefore the clubs, that will play in their competitions.”In a thinly veiled warning against Liverpool, United and Parry, Clarke added: “Let’s continue to work together to determine what is best for English football, with full dialogue between all key stakeholders. However, there is more to our game than economics. Change must benefit clubs, fans and players; not just selective balance sheets. In these difficult times unity, transparency and common purpose must override the interests of the few.”The Times has seen the full project proposals and the documents outline the incredible extent of the power and money that would be given to the top sides.Premier League clubs would be allowed to show Saturday 3pm matches to British viewers on their own TV channels and digital platforms if the broadcast blackout is lifted permanently, in what would be another significant money-making opportunity for the big clubs.The big six clubs would not only dominate the voting rights in the Premier League — their powers would also extend to setting a salary cap in the Championship and wielding a veto over the fixture calendar in the second tier of English football.My money would be on Mr Holt. I have a lot of time for him, he talks a lot of sense.
And as others have said where would the big 6 break away to? They won't form their own league as no one would be interested in a 6 team league.
A European super league would take years of planning and another 14 clubs from across Europe to all decide to leave their national leagues. Plus with the imminent expansion of the Champions league is there even an appetite for a european super league any more?
MARTIN SAMUEL: A complete lack of trust caused the death of Project Big Carve-up, as angry rivals turned on Premier League's Big Two... now their idea has failed, let's see just how devoted these US venture capitalists are to the English pyramid
It was Everton who were the first to mention the T word. Trust. There wasn't a lot of it in the room, as the authors of Project Big Carve-up faced their fellow Premier League shareholders.
By the afternoon, a letter had been drafted suggesting a united front, with all 20 clubs as signatories. The project was dead, replaced by a review in which the entire Premier League, not just its most-entitled members, would contribute. But let's not pretend. It won't be the same.
The Big Six have been meeting in secret for some time now, and every club knew that. They had grown accustomed to the threats and power plays that resulted, always about more money and more power, but this was a requisition too far. There was genuine anger in the room, a very real sense of betrayal.
Martin Semmens, chief executive of Southampton, said he had not even seen the document that chairmen in the lower divisions were going to be voting on. A number of participants drove home the message that no respect had been shown to the clubs – the shareholders, as they are known – the league or the supporters. They were right. The Big Six had not even possessed the courtesy to come through the front door with their ultimatums.
One exchange saw Christian Purslow, a former managing director of Liverpool, but now with Aston Villa, directly challenge Tom Werner, the current Liverpool chairman. He pointed out that this week was the tenth anniversary of the Fenway Sports Group takeover and that, one way or another, it had gone rather well. The thrust of the rest of the address can be summed up in a pithy phrase: and this is how you repay us?
There has been some laughable tosh circulating this week, not least the idea that John Henry of Liverpool has been sat across the Atlantic deeply worried about the fate of the English football pyramid. That is Rick Parry's brief and, by all accounts, he even kept a straight face delivering it, so on the bright side he may be able to retrain for the stage if his lengthy career harming English football is over.
It was this concern for the little guys, apparently that drove Henry towards a proposal that would divert more money to the EFL – although not necessarily more of his, once the many strings were attached – and all he wanted in return was to seize control of every element of English football, across four divisions, in perpetuity.
If he didn't get this, Henry was so anxious for the well-being of the pyramid, that he was going to lead his club, and several others, away from it to form a European Super League, taking large swathes of revenue with them. Because they care.
Unsurprisingly, then, some in the room were sceptical about motivation. Werner insisted that Project Big Swag Bag was not a firm set of proposals more a broad list of ideas. It was then pointed out that, if this was the case, why did he take it to the chairman of another league, and not his own?
And why was that chairman putting it before his clubs to vote on, as if it were finite? Seemed rather presumptuous if Liverpool and Manchester United had only been spit-balling; or was there something they were not telling everybody? After all, it wouldn't be the first time.
Back to the issue of trust and Greg Clarke, chairman of the Football Association, admitted being party to the discussions from an early stage, but walking away when it became clear that a breakaway was being entertained. He should have blown the whistle, then, of course.
Clarke placed the blame for the worst of recent developments on Parry, who he clearly viewed as the agitator in all this. Yes, he had willing accomplices, but he is most certainly culpable. In lieu of structured proposals club by club, Parry plucked a random figure of £250m from the air.
Instead of bringing together football's disparate elements – clubs that have little in common beside pitch dimensions and a ball – he has spread disharmony and mistrust.
There was even talk of whether it was possible to by-pass the EFL chairman in future conversations about rescue packages for lower league clubs.
Ed Woodward, of Manchester United, counselled against that, no doubt to the biggest collective eye roll since the Egremont Crab Fair Gurning World Championships.
Where this leaves Parry is another matter. This was nothing short of an attempted coup and it failed. The Big Six became a Big Two very early in the meeting as four read the room and tiptoed softly away from the chief conspirators.
Liverpool and Manchester United don't seem too taken with Plan B, either, which would see them depart for the EFL to mount a reverse takeover; or as it is known in business circles, engage in a wanton act of commercial suicide.
The good news? There will be a review, hopefully the proper examination of football's finances that the game needs. And if it ends with more money redirected to the lower leagues in a way that makes the pyramid sustainable, that is for the best, too.
The old division of broadcast revenue, pre-Premier League – 50 per cent for tier one, 25 per cent for tier two, 12.5 per cent for tiers three and four – is gone for good, sadly. Project What's-in-it-for-me? was proposing 25 per cent handed down, and that would be healthy.
Yet so, too, would a levy per club, perhaps split according to domestic earnings. Ten per cent from Liverpool's pot last season would work out as £17.46m; from Manchester United £14.25m; from Aston Villa £10.61m. Then we'd see how devoted these American venture capitalists are to football's lovely pyramid.
Obviously they wouldn't have complained had it gone through, but wasn't this driven by Liverpool and United? I've not seen anything that says the other 4 were actively seeking it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/10/15/exclusive-fa-chief-greg-clarke-proposed-premier-league-2-b-teams/
Many years ago a group of friends got together and built a house. Over the years the house was extended and more people came and lived with them. To maintain order in the house each room had an equal vote but, owing to a lack of space, a number of the new arrivals and not-so-well-off people had to share rooms so they didn’t have as much a say in proceedings as those in the big rooms.
Over time people moved from room to room, sometimes going to a bigger room, sometimes going back to a shared smaller one; some people left the house to be replaced with new people.
Then, about 30 years ago, some of the people decided they didn’t want to carry on sharing the kitchen and bathroom with the others so they built a new shiny building next door for their own use. After they moved out there was more room in the original house so the remaining tenants were able to have a room each and so had an equal vote in that house. There was still movement between rooms and even between buildings but some of those in the new house were getting a bit snobby and didn’t really want the great unwashed from across the path joining them; normally new arrivals were kicked out again the following year. They certainly weren’t too keen on still paying some of the upkeep of the old house.
In recent years the residents of the old house have fallen on hard times and have been struggling to pay the rent and the bills; the house has fallen into a bit of a state. The big house doesn’t really want to help them out any more as they’d rather play with their European pen pals instead of their next door neighbours.
What the big house wants to do is dig up the path between the two buildings and build a big wall around their building with a security gate to stop anyone getting in. They’ve offered to pay the leccy bill in the old house for the next couple of years but probably only if the old house looks after the big house’s kids in their rooms.
I think the big house’s scheme might have fallen foul of the Planning Committee but they’ll no doubt tweak them slightly, probably after seeing a new architect, and they’ll get waved through.
EXCLUSIVE: Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman slams EFL counterpart Rick Parry over bailout negotiations and claims he is trying to 'create division' among top-flight clubs after fallout of doomed Project Big Picture
By MATT HUGHES FOR MAILONLINE
Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman has accused his EFL counterpart Rick Parry of jeopardising a bailout for the lower divisions as the top-flight's conflict with the lower divisions continued.
In an explosive letter sent to the EFL after Wednesday's meeting of the 20 Premier League clubs Hoffman claims that Parry has refused to engage in negotiations regarding the proposed bailout, due to his secret talks with Liverpool and Manchester United over Project Big Picture.
Hoffman goes on to accuse Parry of deliberately seeking to create division among the top 20 clubs, an incendiary claim that raises real questions over whether the Premier League and EFL can continue to work together.
Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman has hit out at the EFL's Rick Parry in an explosive letter
Hoffman claims that EFL chairman Parry (right) is refusing to engage with the Premier League over bailout negotiations following the fallout of the failed Project Big Picture
The letter from Hoffman outlines the terms of the Premier League's bailout offer - a £20million grant to clubs in League One and Two with the possibility of a further £30m in loans to follow - but the newly appointed chairman also takes aim at Parry.
The EFL clubs will discuss the offer at divisional meetings on Thursday afternoon, but are minded to reject it initially as they claim it is insufficient and are unhappy that the Championship clubs have been excluded.
'In times of crisis it is even more important that we work together rather than create division,' Hoffman writes.
'Despite Rick's actions on a number of matters which have deliberately created division and put in jeopardy a much-needed rescue package for EFL clubs, the Premier League today gained Club approval for an offer for League One and League Two clubs.'
The missive from Hoffman outlines the terms of the Premier League's bailout offer - a £20million grant to clubs in League One and Two but nothing for the Championship
Hoffman's letter also confirms Sportsmail's story from earlier this week that the EFL have already rejected the first bailout offer - without putting it to the clubs - of a £40m grant and £110m in loans due to the conditions attached.
'Rick Parry did not engage with us,' Hoffman writes.
'However, on 13 October we received feedback of our funding offer from Dave Baldwin (who has been nothing but professional throughout). He stated that the caveats applied against both the proposed loan and grant funds were not something the EFL Board could put before your clubs.'
Kieran made the point that the EFL had shared no details whatsoever with its member clubs. Given what came forward from the FAPL, that seems completely inexcusable. he further made the point that the EFL had earlier in the year rejected a proposal that the EFL should have three independent directors ideally QCs, to provide oversight.
Parry really has to resign, forthwith.
Call for an independent regulator from group called 'Saving our beautiful Game' led by Gary Neville, Dennis Lewis and David Bernstein.
Good luck with that!
Denise Lewis is good at overcoming hurdles and raising the bar.