Premier League - Project Big Picture

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
aggi
Posts: 6248
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1475 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by aggi » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:06 pm

dsr wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:59 pm
link? who are these people?
Doubled and trebled is probably an exaggeration (apart from a few who have seriously capitalised, I think Musk is one) but there are plenty of reports showing that wealth had continued to grow at significant rates.

tiger76
Posts: 10592
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 1693 times
Has Liked: 3283 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by tiger76 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:58 pm

This is yet another example of the big 6 attempting to call the shots, and TBH if they want to form a European Super League then let them go, and then the remaining clubs can get on with reinventing the PL. And apologies if this has been mentioned but Kieran Maguire claimed these back door talks have been going on for 3 years, so all the nonsense that this is due to covid is exactly that nonsense, they just want a closed shop, and a chance to feather their nests with all these additional meaningless European games, 12 group stage games in the CL for goodness sake, and no doubt countless overseas friendlies, plus of course the PPV games which will become a staple diet now the can of worms has been opened.

There has been fierce resistance amongst the remaining PL members, at least in public anyway, so it's by no means guaranteed to get the 14 votes required to pass, and if it does it'll signal the death kneel for English football as we know it.

DCWat
Posts: 5076
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:04 am
Been Liked: 1963 times
Has Liked: 1727 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by DCWat » Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:14 pm

It’ll obviously not make a jot of difference, but I’m personally boycotting the watching of any live games involving Liverpool or Man United, that don’t involve Burnley.

I hate the way football has gone and it’s blatantly not finished going even further!
This user liked this post: Woodleyclaret

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:26 pm

Awayfromburnley wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:48 pm
I actually, genuinely believe this is smoke and mirrors related to the PPV fiasco. We've stopped taking about that haven't we?

Expect the PPV price to drop and this superleague proposal to quietly dissappear.

Watch this space.....
It may have been brought forward in terms of publication as a result of that but given that Rick Parry has publicly said talks have been going on over 3 years on the plan it is not just a smokescreen - yes before he joined the EFL and yes that does bring other things into question

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 11004
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 2433 times
Has Liked: 1349 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Quickenthetempo » Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:40 pm

Interesting idea is the money for new ground/upgrades with Spurs being able to claim a 125m rebate. With Everton about to build one they might vote yes.

We might even vote yes if it got us two new stands free of charge?

Murger
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:55 pm
Been Liked: 540 times
Has Liked: 538 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Murger » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:06 pm

Our former Chief Exec has jacked in his job at the EFL. Didn't last long.

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:12 pm

Murger wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:06 pm
Our former Chief Exec has jacked in his job at the EFL. Didn't last long.
If that is true then good for him, this was not what he signed up for

EDIT it is true

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/october/e ... e-officer/

Spiral
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Spiral » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:32 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:40 pm
We might even vote yes if it got us two new stands free of charge?
We need a voice, a seat at the decision-making table much, much more than we need some new stands in all honesty. Hope we're not daft enough to actually vote for this, impending covid-related financial calamity or otherwise.

ClaretTony
Posts: 41449
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 18834 times
Has Liked: 3438 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:36 pm

Not had chance to comment on this previously but it is refreshing to see that almost immediately we had supporters coming out against it, including those supporter groups from top six clubs, from the FSA, from the Premier League and from DCMS along with some leading journalists such as Henry Winter.

I saw the CEO at Rochdale all excited and in favour of it on TV - does this bloke not understand what they are doing. What a horrible stitch up plan this is, as bad as any I've seen.

aggi
Posts: 6248
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1475 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by aggi » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:41 pm

Interesting from the Athletic

Image

aggi
Posts: 6248
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1475 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by aggi » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:43 pm

Also relevant in light of the PPV shenanigans at the moment

Image

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:44 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:12 am
I need to look at the figures properly but to my eyes Project Big Picture annual giveaways (ignoring the one off payments) add up to maybe less than £200m - £300m of additional money taken away from the remaining 18 clubs (around £11m to £16m each) annually

From a big 6 perspective, that is easily replaced by:
- additional Champions/Europa League games as per the ECA's proposals for post 2024 UEFA competitions (those proposals come with a recommendation for domestic leagues to have no more than 18 teams) as they are wanting as many as 8 extra games in them for most participants
- changing the Premier League distribution formula so it is not actually the big 6 that bears the cost, currently a ratio of 1 to 1.8 range of distribution from the Premier League, they could swiftly change that
- additional summer promotional/friendly games (as posted earlier the ICC tournament could become the summer Champions League it has always wanted to be
- there is provision in the proposal for clubs to stream globally up to 8 games a season on their own web- platforms and sell access on a PPV basis, there is no indication that the money earned would be pooled into the central distribution or that such games could be sold to broadcasters around the world, even if they are sold to broadcasters as well the value of them would be significantly less

You can see how the big clubs would actually better off and even more financially dominant
I have been thinking about this a bit more though still not done any serious calculations

It is obvious that if the clubs especially the big 6 control the media rights for 8 of their home games each season that the value of broadcasting rights for the remaining games would collapse, as all clubs would want to control their most attractive fixtures (i.e. those featuring the biggest clubs globally) it wouldn't be a far stretch to see the collective broadcasting rights fall by 60% - 70% possibly more in such circumstances

- we could easily see our club with half or less of the broadcasting income we see now

- how happy would the EFL be with what effectively is 10% of the current broadcast income (if the collective broadcast income drops by 60%) the Premier League has now (the answer is not very (they get two thirds of that figure already in Solidarity and EPPP payments

- retrospective funding for recent funding for ground developments would see some big clubs (particularly Spurs and Liverpool) get funding from their rivals for developments that have substantially increased their revenues and which they currently pay for comfortably from their own revenues.

Pstotto
Posts: 5046
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 917 times
Has Liked: 701 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Pstotto » Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:04 pm

Guess who is behind this?

The Pope in Rome, methinks.

There's a 500 year plan in action to overturn the Spanish Armada's defeat and the Protestant movement's ascendancy in Europe.

It's the fight against Brexit in another form, for the creation of the state of Eurasia via UEFA.

Pstotto
Posts: 5046
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 917 times
Has Liked: 701 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Pstotto » Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:05 pm

The big six and 'special status'... Kick'em out of football so say all of the rest.

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:16 pm

Pstotto wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:05 pm
The big six and 'special status'... Kick'em out of football so say all of the rest.
except Parry has invited them to quit the Premier League and join the EFL on the terms outlined - without asking his members

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:44 pm

Here is an interesting perspective from the Ugly Game blog - I have been posting thoughts from @UglyGame for some time now on the MMT thread - he has a distinct and clear perspective - I may not always agree with him but usually has a reasoned argument

12 OCT 2020
American Hustle: The Moscow Connection – Project Big Picture and the end of football as we know it
posted in Uncategorized by theuglygame

Inside man Rick Parry is planning the sporting heist of the century.

In the mid-90s, when the Premier League was in its infancy, Russian President Boris Yeltsin was in trouble. He was struggling with a stagnant economy which meant poor poll ratings and a dire shortage of funds for his re-election campaign.

Seeing a man over a barrel, some of the nation’s nascent wealthy elite brought him a deal. In return for money flowing into his campaign fund, he was to agree to privatise huge swathes of Russia’s industrial infrastructure. A desperate Yeltsin assented and hundreds of billions of pounds worth of state assets were sold for pennies on the pound in rigged auctions.

The plan, which became known as the Loans for Shares Scheme, helped Yeltsin win his re-election bid, but at the cost of robbing the country of its wealth and unleashing the Wild West era of the oligarchs, where a small group of people, often using both legal and illegal means, came to make historic fortunes in just a few years.

Something similar is happening in English football. While the mooted Project Big Picture was cooked up by Liverpool’s and Manchester United’s American owners, its structure is strikingly reminiscent of the Loans for Shares Scheme which ultimately helped enrich Chelsea’s owner. It is the greatest fire sale in sporting history.

Now, sensible people are going to urge you not to overreact. We need to explore the details of the plan, they will say, and see how negotiations develop.

Nope.

Let me be clear: Project Big Picture proposes the effective privatisation of the Premier League, with the top flight of English football passing into the hands of the Big 6. In return for sharing some of the Premier League’s unfairly acquired gains with the rest of football, it would convert the Big 6’s de facto running of the game into permanent control of it.

It is not hyperbole to say that it would be the end of English football as we know it.

Project Big Picture is disaster capitalism writ large. In exchange for a £250m loan and a promised increase in revenue sharing, the Big 6 take complete control of all aspects of the Premier League as well as of fixture scheduling. They also get the increased formalisation of links to between large and small clubs and to start experimenting with selling their own TV rights.

This is an incredible list, all their Christmases at once. It creates precedents for, among other things, B Teams and an end to collective TV rights sales.

Beyond that, anything on the Big 6 wishlist not actually covered in the document – a Euro Super League while retaining a domestic presence, the end of relegation, or an ever larger share of TV money – becomes available to them as and when they want it by virtue of their voting power.

Under the current 14 of 20 voting system in the Premier League, each Big 6 club’s vote was 7.1% of a majority. Under the new two-tier rules, it would be 16.7% – more than double. And that says nothing about the increase in informal power that comes from narrowing the electorate to a group whose interests are closely aligned and who would have the ability to block any prospective new owners. In simple terms, anything the Big 6 agree on that is not actually illegal, or that falls within under the authority of the FA or Uefa, becomes possible.

Imagine you are the Glazers. Think of the increase in value of your club if, overnight, you more than double your voting power in the world’s wealthiest football league with freedom to reorganise its structure and revenue flows. What does that do for Big 6 football clubs that are worth in the region of a billion pounds? Does it add tens of millions to their value? Hundreds?

In all likelihood, each of the Big 6 owners will see their clubs appreciate by more than the total cost of the scheme. The deal is an unbelievable bargain for the Big 6, perhaps the greatest in English football history.

All they offer in return is a £250m loan and an increased revenue share from a source that they intend, eventually, to retire. As with the Russian Loans for Shares, it’s the effective privatisation of a national asset for pennies in the pound.

Think too what it means for governance. Healthy leagues do not allow a small group of clubs to run them. Look at Scottish football, Spanish football, Italian football – it becomes impossible to sustain a vibrant competitive league when some clubs has disproportionate influence.

The challenge for those who, rather complacently in my view, are counselling caution, is to explain why the Big 6 need the power to remake any aspect of the game for their own profit or convenience if they didn’t later intend to use it.

It’s achingly apparent to anyone with eyes that the Big 6 have steadily used their informal power to run the Premier League in a way that preferentially benefits themselves and harms competitiveness. How anyone could then blithely conclude that, if you increase and formalise this power, things won’t get worse is, to put it kindly, somewhat naive. Are there really people prepared to credit the Big 6 with good intentions towards the rest of the pyramid? People who believe they have any intention other than increasing their share of football’s wealth?

If these proposals were not a completely outrageous over-reach, the football equivalent of dissolving parliament, they would have emerged at some point in the last twenty years. The very fact they are only appearing in a time of emergency tells you how sweeping they are.

Ask yourself, are there any measures generally beneficial to the Premier League that could not be passed under a 14/20 system or even an 11/20 voting system? If there are not, why is a 6/18 system necessary?

Ask yourself too, are there are any measures harmful to football, or only beneficial to the Big 6, that a 6/18 voting system would make it impossible to prevent?

With such an extraordinary change, the burden is on its proponents to show why it is necessary. They must explain what it will be used for and why these essential changes are currently impossible.

They must explain too how such proposals are indicative of a partner negotiating in good faith, rather than one seeking to exploit a desperate EFL.

Because I can’t get past the simple point that no one who didn’t intend to misuse these powers would seek them. The only reason you demand the right to make policy with just 6 of 18 votes is because you intend future changes that you know the majority of voters would oppose. These powers have no legitimate purpose and, like the footballing equivalent of the Enabling Act, once granted will be beyond anyone’s power to curtail.

Again, cool heads will point out how many potentially good things there are in the plan. But the problem with examining them, with indulging this line of thought, is that there is no reasonable quid pro quo – nothing of remotely equal value – that the Big 6 could conceivably offer in return or could not later unilaterally withdraw.

It is a terrible deal, rotten to the core and, like Rick Parry’s reputation, unsalvageable. Better to walk away than to entertain it.

For decades, English football’s problem has been poor, short-sighted governance. The FA is hidebound, the EFL supine, the Premier League ever stronger and fans almost totally unheard. Finally, after years of campaigning, there is a growing agreement that we need a total overhaul of English football and a new regulator to govern how leagues and club owners behave.

So are we now going to stand by while our own Loans for Shares scandal irreversibly concentrates power in the game in the hands of six people so that they may run football as the oligarchs ran Russia?

If we do that, if we give into panic about the urgent need for financial support for our clubs, or take this proposal as the basis for further negotiation, we will regret it for decades.

Parry and his co-conspirators have overplayed their hand. This deal, even if it were good, can’t happen fast enough to save clubs. We need a bailout now; that needs to be our sole focus. It’s is time for the Premier League to say if they will help or not. No more delays, no more secret schemes.

Then later Parry’s replacement, if he or she still thinks Big Picture has merit, can begin the years-long consultation necessary for changes of this magnitude. Hopefully this will include a review of why the EFL appears unable to employ senior leadership whose sole focus is pursuing the best interests of its clubs.

Until then, clubs must not sell out their fans’ birth rights for a payday loan and some worthless promises. We need to burn Project Big Picture to the group and send Rick Parry packing.

Martin Calladine
These 6 users liked this post: Leisure levraiclaret Colburn_Claret groove brexit ClaretPope

Firthy
Posts: 3201
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
Been Liked: 1041 times
Has Liked: 191 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Firthy » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:46 pm

Am I allowed to call them "arrogant *****"?

DAVETHEVICAR
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:33 pm
Been Liked: 499 times
Has Liked: 1048 times
Location: Lincoln

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by DAVETHEVICAR » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:54 pm

BBC sport suggesting that WHU are very much against this “Project Big Picture”.

levraiclaret
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
Been Liked: 378 times
Has Liked: 1133 times
Location: Leicestershire
Contact:

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by levraiclaret » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:56 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:44 pm


12 OCT 2020
American Hustle: The Moscow Connection – Project Big Picture and the end of football as we know it
posted in Uncategorized by theuglygame

Inside man Rick Parry is planning the sporting heist of the century.

Martin Calladine
I logged in to like this article.

thanks CP

ClaretTony
Posts: 41449
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 18834 times
Has Liked: 3438 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:57 pm

DAVETHEVICAR wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:54 pm
BBC sport suggesting that WHU are very much against this “Project Big Picture”.
Very much against it

Spiral
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Spiral » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:00 pm

As firthy mentioned above, the arrogance of those two clubs to presume the right to yoke WHU and others into their schemes without consulting those clubs is breathtaking.

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:23 pm

Premier League suggesting that the Project Big Picture figures don't add up from the Telegraph - no surprise to some of us who just do not see a 10% revenue increase for Broadcast rights across the board - industry analysts were expecting a 10% drop even before the rights are diluted by the proposals - They do of course add up for United and Liverpool irrespective of how things turn out for everyone else

Revealed: What EFL clubs are being promised in Project Big Picture overhaul - and why Premier League says sums don't add up
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 12, 2020

The Premier League will tell its clubs it has serious doubts over the revenue figures quoted by the backers of Project Big Picture (PBP), the Liverpool and Manchester United-driven restructure of the English game, which projects an optimistic 10 per cent uplift in revenue by the 2022-2023 season.

The proposals, which have sent shockwaves through the English game, have been analysed in detail by the Premier League since they were revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday and there is scepticism that the figures being quoted are achievable.

Telegraph Sport has now seen the new PBP proposals, the 18th version, in which Premier League and EFL clubs are told by authors Liverpool and Manchester United that they expect revenues to rise across the board by 10 per cent for the next three-year broadcast rights cycle, beginning with the 2022-2023 season.

In this latest version of PBP, EFL clubs are given much more precise details of what they can expect to earn per year with, for example, the Championship share of the proposed 25 per cent revenue split totalling a huge £568.8 million. That would mean the first-placed club in the Championship would jump from a current annual income of £8.2m - according to last season’s figures - to £26.7m by 2022-2023 under the new proposals, including £2m for stadium improvements.

But Premier League clubs outside the elite have serious doubts about its viability. The PL believes that to pay the rescue packages for the EFL and Football Association alone the 20 clubs would collectively have to borrow around £295m immediately against future earnings. The PBP proposals have promised an immediate £250m bailout for the EFL which will be repaid out of future earnings. In addition there is a £100m gift to the FA which comes with no repayment expectation.

The current annual combined value of Premier League international and domestic rights is £2.947 billion with central sponsorship and the current value of EFL rights taking that to £3.178bn annually – the total pot that PBP is offering to share with the EFL. The PBP-projected 10 per cent uplift in rights value for the next three-year cycle, as laid out in the PBP document, estimates Premier League clubs would earn £3.242bn from international and domestic rights. The overall income of the two leagues, including sponsorship, is estimated at £3.473bn annually from 2022-2023 to 2024-2025.

That 10 per cent uplift is regarded as extremely optimistic given the current climate for broadcast rights. In the last sale of Premier League rights, the value of the domestic contract fell marginally and the growth came from the overseas contract. There is also concern that under PBP proposals it would mean the Premier League selling a game that would potentially have less scope for the kind of jeopardy - surprise results in which bigger teams lose - that the game saw last weekend.

Under the terms of the proposals, PBP is offering 25 per cent of all £3.473 billion revenue less annual central costs of £100 million; £180 million to grassroots and “good causes”; £10 million for the maintenance of Wembley and £150 million in a central pool for stadium subsidies.

Under the PBP proposals, Championship clubs will share, equally, 85 per cent of the total £568.8m pot, including an infrastructure fund for stadium improvements, with 15 per cent being paid on final position. Currently all clubs earn a total of £8.2m a season - £3.7m from the EFL and £4.5m in solidarity payments from the Premier League.

League One clubs would share a £113.8m pot, including an infrastructure fund for stadium improvements, on the same 85/15 per cent split between guaranteed payments and final league position. Under the PBP proposals, for season 2022-2023, the top League One club would earn £4.5m and there would be a minimum of £3.4m for the bottom-placed club. Under the current deal, all League One clubs earned £1.2m last season, a little more than half of that from Premier League solidarity payments and the rest their share of the EFL television deal.

League Two clubs under the PBP proposals would earn £3.2m each in the 2022-2023 season, with £500,000 of that marked for infrastructure improvements to stadiums. A total pot of £75.8m. Currently the clubs share a £19.8m pot - £400,000 each from the EFL and £500,000 each in solidarity from the Premier League.

Goalposts
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:36 pm
Been Liked: 271 times
Has Liked: 110 times
Location: the ghost in the atom

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Goalposts » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:32 pm

§ https://t.co/c7Si1wdhM


Just when you wondered how deep the rabbit hole goes

Link not working essentially allows Liverpool spurs city Utd etc to also claim back monies from stadium enhancements

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:40 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:05 pm
That is easily prevented - only 3 things were enshrined in writing at the start of the Premier League

- The Premier League clubs must compete in the League Cup
- The FA had a Golden share in the Premier League consequently it has veto power as a special shareholder during the election of the chairman and chief executive and when new rules are adopted by the league
- The PFA got 5% of the domestic broadcast income

All are still active, even though the Premier League has tried many times to get them all changed

At that point the Football League (as it was then) got a good share of the broadcast income too but that was not in writing so was lost eventually when the big money started coming in
The FA's Golden Share (never exercised in all the time they have had it) could be used to block Project Big Picture if they wanted too.

The FA's Chairman is coming under pressure from his own council over just how much he knows (and if he has agreed to anything) according to the Telegraph

Exclusive: FA chairman to face grilling over what he knew about Project Big Picture - and if he will back it
BEN RUMSBY OCTOBER 12, 2020

Football Association chairman Greg Clarke will face a grilling from his own council over what he knew about ‘Project Big Picture’ and whether he backs it or will try to block it.

Clarke was under pressure on Monday to clarify the FA’s position on the plan by Manchester United and Liverpool to instigate the biggest shake-up of English football since the formation of the Premier League.

The FA has been silent on the proposals since they were first revealed by Telegraph Sport, including the prospect of it being given a £100 million gift if they came to pass.

Clarke, who has been aware of at least some of the proposals since the summer, now faces being quizzed on the matter at an FA council meeting on Thursday ahead of a meeting of the governing body’s board later that day.

Malcolm Clarke, the chairman of the Football Supporters’ Association and long-standing FA councillor, told the Telegraph: “We will be asking the chair for an indication of what involvement, if any, the FA has had in any of these discussions and what its view is.”

The FA are not prepared to scrap the Community Shield as part of a revamp of the calendar, as proposed under Project Big Picture, pointing out that its main purpose is to raise money for charities.

However the backers of the proposals may argue that they can cover the shortfall to charities as part of a separate £100 million fund they want to establish for "good causes".

The FA will also be invited to give up negotiating its own broadcast deals for the FA Cup, which is its greatest source of income, and asked to join the Premier League and the English Football League in selling rights for matches collectively “in return for a percentage of the total pot”.

The FA’s role in the plans could be crucial given the organisation has a so-called ‘golden share’ which would, in theory, allow it to veto any significant changes to the Premier League.

In reality using this veto would be regarded as an aggressive measure by the clubs backing the plan although the FA will argue that it needs to act in its own interests and those of the wider game.

There is currently enough opposition to Project Big Picture from within the Premier League itself and its members for that golden share to be rendered redundant.

However, were they forced to decide, then the FA would have a huge decision to make.

That is because the current proposals have the backing of English Football League chairman Rick Parry, the former Premier League and Liverpool chief executive who also sits on the FA board, and a sizeable number of his clubs.

As well as having a golden share in the Premier League, the FA is England’s designated member of both Fifa and Uefa and must sanction any breakaway competition for it to be recognised by those two bodies.

Were the FA to refuse to do so, any club or player involved faces being banned from participating in Fifa and Uefa competitions.

A refusal by either party – the clubs breaking away or the FA – to back down would see the matter end up in court.

The £100m gift, at a time the FA has lost millions in revenue and been forced to make redundancies due to the coronavirus crisis, would make such a decision all the more agonising.

Malcolm Clarke made it clear what he thought of that and the financial incentives on offer to EFL clubs under Project Big Picture.

“It feels like taking advantage of the current crisis and making people an offer they can’t refuse,” he said.

“Our view, as you know, is, far from giving more power to these six or these nine or even the whole of the Premier League, we want to see power taken away from clubs.”

He said he backed some of the proposals, including the “essential” redistribution of wealth down the pyramid and a fan charter including capping of away tickets at £20, away travel subsidised, a focus on a return to safe standing and a minimum away allocation of eight per cent capacity.

But he added: “It comes at a very big price in terms of a one-way street of handing over power to a small number of clubs.”

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:44 pm

Goalposts wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:32 pm
§ https://t.co/c7Si1wdhM


Just when you wondered how deep the rabbit hole goes

Link not working essentially allows Liverpool spurs city Utd etc to also claim back monies from stadium enhancements
try this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&start=5540
Last edited by Chester Perry on Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wokingclaret
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 157 times
Has Liked: 396 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Wokingclaret » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:44 pm

The small clubs love it, Orient owner on R5 live now

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:46 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:44 pm
The small clubs love it, Orient owner on R5 live now
because the are looking at the numbers presented not actually establishing the facts for themselves - it is why the game is in such a mess

Spiral
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Spiral » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:15 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:44 pm
The small clubs love it, Orient owner on R5 live now
For those who didn't catch the interview, Nigel Travis went on a weird tangent about the quality of club ownership and seemed to believe veto power over ownership would only ever be used by the top six with altruistic intent, somewhat perplexingly and pointlessly inventing the idea of a 'quality of ownership test' to justify the abrogation of the one-club-one-vote, 14/20 rule. When he was challenged as to why the rule changes on voting must be a condition of the rescue package which he's apparently keen to invent fantasy about in order to justify it to fans - or himself, perhaps - his only answer was along the lines 'well, this is a leak, lets see what the proposals are', which basically means his imagination has reached its limit. All I'll say is I'm glad Nigel Travis doesn't own Burnley.
This user liked this post: Colburn_Claret

elwaclaret
Posts: 2749
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 691 times
Has Liked: 1304 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by elwaclaret » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:24 pm

Feel that some of the commentators are right. This has been leaked to cause outrage. Then when the serious proposals are released everyone is so relieved that the worst case was off the table, that they accept a watered down compromise. Still, One that the rest would never have sanctioned, had they just come out with it.

Spiral
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Spiral » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:12 pm

elwaclaret wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:24 pm
Feel that some of the commentators are right. This has been leaked to cause outrage. Then when the serious proposals are released everyone is so relieved that the worst case was off the table, that they accept a watered down compromise. Still, One that the rest would never have sanctioned, had they just come out with it.
I don't see the strategic value at all in deliberately leaking the proposals. Any renegotiated position that might maintain the current voting system, league size, remove the suggested promotion/relegation playoff game, and still cut the EFL in to the TV distribution monies as well as offering a rescue package would not be met with near as much hostility, if any, and in that case, were that your actual aim, why leak a terrible set of proposals and completely lose control of the narrative, put careers on the line, and burn bridges? No, these proposals are the genuine aims of FSG, Glazer, and Rick Parry. There's no other logical reason why you'd propose to remove so much of what makes the PL and English football competitive under the guide of reform and restructure. It doesn't make sense as a bargaining position, and the PL clubs, the ones who under the 14/20 rule ultimately give their assent to proposals and need to see any rule changes work in their interest, are for the most part quite engaged in and appreciative of English football culture.

For the record (and I want this on the record) I hope at Wednesday's PL shareholder meeting, Garlick, or whomever we send as a delegate, when called upon to speak, unbelts, unzips, pulls down their pants, bends over and spreads their cheeks, setting off party streamers and a massive party popper from their arse with the words "go f.uck yourself" streaming into the air made from claret and blue crate paper while sounding not one but three party blowers and releasing helium balloons from a net.

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:29 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:44 pm
The small clubs love it, Orient owner on R5 live now
Jon Colman has been reporting on Carlisle for the local paper (the Carlisle News and Star) for years - he is hugely respected by journalists in the national press - he seems to have a better grasp of the situation than many owners in the EFL

8 hrs ago
This ‘Big Picture’ is all about power and the risks are plain
By Jon Colman @joncolman
Carlisle United Reporter

It is difficult, even 24 hours on, to pick out the part of Project Big Picture and its fall-out which is the most genuinely hilarious – if you like your humour dark and bitter, that is.

A personal favourite is the idea, nudged into certain reports, that the owners of arguably the biggest of the “big six”, the Glazers, are motivated by a humble desire to protect English football’s sacred pyramid.

The Glazers! They of the hedge-fund loans, eye-watering debts and monster dividends at the commercial enterprise formerly known as Manchester United Football Club.

Yes, I’m sure they are driven above all by a deep desire to see Carlisle United and their ilk get in closer touch with the elite. Their entry into the English game was just one long hustle in the name of even competition and fairer distribution. Silly us for thinking otherwise.

Another take which brought about howls of laughter strong enough to tip chairs was the Premier League’s own. It is always quite the spectacle watching big organisations race to the lectern without the slightest self-awareness, and their statement in response to Sunday’s proposals did not let us down.

The plan drawn up by Liverpool and Man Utd and with the support of EFL leadership, they said, “could have a damaging impact on the whole game”, and that better solutions would be gained if “we all work together”.

The Premier League. Warning about damaging the whole game. The actual Premier League.

Satirists are going to be the next profession on a Government poster at this rate. Sorry, folks, your job is no longer viable. Rethink, reskill, reboot.

We must pick ourselves from the floor, though, and look at all this, now that Project Big Secret is out in the open, seemingly floated in The Telegraph before some of the actual clubs affected were given the decency of official notification.

The starting point should always be to look past the sweeteners, however tasty they may be, and ask the vital questions, which are always about power: how much of it do they want, and what do they want to do with it?

This is, make no mistake, a bid to consolidate the status of those driving the plan and those who will most obviously benefit. There are usually deals to be struck with the devil in order to advance modern football anywhere these days but if the English game wishes above all to further empower the Glazers, Fenway Sports Group, Stan Kroenke and such like, it must go straight ahead and vote this through.

If it wants to apply some checks before it’s too late, it needs to give these proposals a firm shake until all the bad fruit falls from the branches. Otherwise a big drawbridge will be pulled up forever.

The guiding suspicion simply must be: what will the “big six” do with their extra might, once it’s formally signed over? What will their enshrined voting power allow them to foster, with no longer the same powers of objection allowed in the lower ranks?

A Euro-breakaway? B Teams in the EFL? Hoarding of individual television rights? An end to top-flight relegation, even? If they want it after this – and they’re hardly going to say so at this stage – how will the rest be able to build barricades? This is the worst of the plan, an opportunistic power-grab which should be seen this way, whatever merits people may spy in the detail.

Some of those do exist. The suggested redistribution of television money, with 25 per cent going to the EFL, is broadly what the game and the lower-leagues require. The organisation now concerned about “damaging the game” opened the current, gaping gap many years ago. Any reasonable move to close it ought to be considered.

Increased money for the Football Association and grassroots causes, too, is an obvious upside. It is also unavoidably the case that, at a time of chronic need, at least we have an idea to inspect, and the various other competing interests near the game’s top table have not yet come up with one.

So thrash it out, then, if that is remotely possible. The only problem is time, which those at Carlisle’s end don’t particularly have.

If this thing doesn’t fly, if it’s gunned down – as well it might be – what next? It won’t stop the clock ticking down to what United’s EFL man John Nixon has described as “Armageddon”, scheduled to start at some stage next month.

Civil war, which already appears in full swing, is not what clubs ransacked by Covid-19 need. Some of those at the peak may be able to afford a period of politicking and arm-wrestling; League Two clubs deprived of fans for months cannot.

This needs to focus minds and it is hoped Rick Parry, the EFL chairman, has at least some eggs left for different baskets in the coming days.

One thing we do know from what he has hatched with Liverpool and Manchester United is that – wouldn’t you know it! – the £250m is there after all.

The sum required by the EFL to save their clubs from being obliterated by coronavirus: it’s part of Parry’s package, there in black and white. If it’s whipped away now, we will certainly know how conditional the elite’s support truly is.

We will know the true price of saving a structure which, we are invited to believe, keeps the Glazers awake at night.

One has to try not to let cynicism smother every aspect of this. But it’s hard. Here’s the thing: if those with the most muscle in English football really cared about its foundations, there have been ample opportunities to show it long before now.

They could have lobbied against invading the EFL Trophy with their stockpiled Under-21s, for one thing. They could have turned down the other great power snatch known as the Elite Player Performance Plan.

They could have stopped taking, and taking, and taking.

They didn’t then and they won’t now, once this seemingly helpful set of ideas is set down in statute.

Each stakeholder in the game needs, in the coming days, to decide whether the immediate, urgent pros are worth the long-term cons. As ever, the pressure of the moment will undoubtedly make some sign up.

At the very least they must do so with noses held, ears pricked and eyes wide open.
This user liked this post: Cirrus_Minor

elwaclaret
Posts: 2749
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 691 times
Has Liked: 1304 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by elwaclaret » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:33 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:12 pm
I don't see the strategic value at all in deliberately leaking the proposals. Any renegotiated position that might maintain the current voting system, league size, remove the suggested promotion/relegation playoff game, and still cut the EFL in to the TV distribution monies as well as offering a rescue package would not be met with near as much hostility, if any, and in that case, were that your actual aim, why leak a terrible set of proposals and completely lose control of the narrative, put careers on the line, and burn bridges? No, these proposals are the genuine aims of FSG, Glazer, and Rick Parry. There's no other logical reason why you'd propose to remove so much of what makes the PL and English football competitive under the guide of reform and restructure. It doesn't make sense as a bargaining position, and the PL clubs, the ones who under the 14/20 rule ultimately give their assent to proposals and need to see any rule changes work in their interest, are for the most part quite engaged in and appreciative of English football culture.

For the record (and I want this on the record) I hope at Wednesday's PL shareholder meeting, Garlick, or whomever we send as a delegate, when called upon to speak, unbelts, unzips, pulls down their pants, bends over and spreads their cheeks, setting off party streamers and a massive party popper from their arse with the words "go f.uck yourself" streaming into the air made from claret and blue crate paper while sounding not one but three party blowers and releasing helium balloons from a net.

Fully agree with you sentiments... but several reporters mention the UEFA and Juve owner wants 18 not twenty in the Premier, they are buying lower league support (from the blindly panicking). He has form for leaking his outlines and then steamrolling through amended versions, they point out.

It will be the death of football if it happens.... the league is about always having that chance of reaching the top. Take that away it is pointless. Sadly the yanks see feeder clubs and 6 franchises as the way forward, the rest of the 18 serving as warm ups for their World Series games.

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:57 pm

elwaclaret wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:33 pm
Fully agree with you sentiments... but several reporters mention the UEFA and Juve owner wants 18 not twenty in the Premier, they are buying lower league support (from the blindly panicking). He has form for leaking his outlines and then steamrolling through amended versions, they point out.

It will be the death of football if it happens.... the league is about always having that chance of reaching the top. Take that away it is pointless. Sadly the yanks see feeder clubs and 6 franchises as the way forward, the rest of the 18 serving as warm ups for their World Series games.
The desires of Andreas Angelli and the ECA have been known for a long time and discussed at length on the MMT thread, what is interesting is that a lot of those ideas can be traced back to a document produced by a Saatchi executive in the late 80's for Silvio Berlusconi. That same executive in the early 80's produced a document for Irving Scholar, parts of which were used as the basis for the Premier League (much of what wasn't used forms the attractive parts of Project Big Picture) - The writer is Alex Fynn - he is proud of what he gave Irving Scholar, not so much what he gave Silvio Berlusconi though it was an entirely logical document for the interests of the big European clubs, it was a document that scared UEFA into accepting Glasgow Rangers plan for the Champions League.
This user liked this post: elwaclaret

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:12 pm

8 Premier League clubs have now briefed that they are against the plans of Project Big Picture - 10 have so far refused to comment

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... cture.html

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:50 pm

seems that 13 clubs have now come out against Project Big Picture according to the man who first broke the story

Exclusive: Opponents to Project Big Picture say plan is 'dead in the water' as English football is split in two
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 12, 2020

The Premier League opponents to Project Big Picture (PBP) have declared it “dead in the water”, with at least 13 of the member clubs understood to be united against it ahead of what promises to be a defining shareholders meeting on Wednesday.

English football has been split in two over the astonishing proposals authored by Liverpool and Manchester United - and revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday - with virtually blanket support for them from the 72 clubs of the Football League (EFL).

Sources have indicated that in the face of majority opposition from the Premier League, the only way forward for Liverpool and United - and any other leading clubs who throw their support in with the two - would to be leave and join the EFL.

Telegraph Sport understands that neither Liverpool nor United’s American ownerships are prepared to walk away from the Premier League - leaving the situation at deadlock. The bombshell proposals, which include handing unprecedented control to the wealthiest clubs, an 18-team top flight, a £250 million bailout for the EFL and 25 per cent of annual revenue to the EFL, need a 14-club majority to be passed. There seems no prospect of that happening at Wednesday’s meeting or beyond.

Sources declared the chances of a 14-vote approval “dead in the water” as clubs opposed to the plan privately discussed their options on Monday ahead of Wednesday's meeting.

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

As of Monday, none of those seven clubs were prepared publically to declare their current position on PBP. EFL clubs were given further details of what the PBP finances would mean for them. Under the PBP proposals, the Championship clubs would see their total annual revenue shoot up to £568.8m from the 2022-2023 season, with the first-place club earning £26.7m compared to £8.2m currently.

League One clubs would earn between £3.4m and £4.5m annually, up from a standard payment of £1.2m. League Two clubs would each earn £3.2m annually, up from £900,000. So far, there has been unanimous support from the EFL clubs.

The Premier League have told its clubs that the PBP sums do not add up – with the whole projection based on an unrealistic 10 per cent uplift in broadcast rights for the next cycle, starting in season 2022-2023. The Premier League’s analysis says clubs outside the elite in the proposed 18-team division would earn less. The league’s status as the most equitable in European football would be lost and so too, many fear, its competitiveness. The ratio of earnings differential from top club to bottom, currently 1:1.7, would fall to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted, the clubs have been told.

The Football Association is yet to declare on the record whether it would seek to block PBP, but it is opposed to the scrapping of the Community Shield game in August that raises funds for charity. There will be emergency meetings held by the 24 Championship clubs on Tuesday, the EFL board on Wednesday and the FA Council on Thursday.

Premier League clubs opposed to the plan have also said in private that they will no longer deal with EFL chairman Rick Parry now that they know he has negotiated with Liverpool and United behind their backs for three years. The clubs believe Parry formulated a plan which was ultimately designed to persuade the so-called Big Six to break away from the Premier League. The EFL chief executive David Baldwin unexpectedly quit on Monday although the organisation said it was unrelated to the PBP disclosure.

The Prime Minister joined the debate, condemning the “backroom dealing” and threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League could not agree a bailout for the EFL "within the existing measures". A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: “It’s clear that this proposal does not command support throughout the Premier League - it is exactly this type of backroom dealing that undermines trust in football governance."

Giftonsnoidea
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:56 pm
Been Liked: 199 times
Has Liked: 222 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Giftonsnoidea » Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:05 am

Project: Do one , no thank you

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:16 am

Wokingclaret wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:44 pm
The small clubs love it, Orient owner on R5 live now
here is another one for it - Fleetwood Chairman/Owner Andy Pilley - the thing to remember about him was that he was insistent that League one complete last season so his team could pursue their promotion hopes even though he knew it would destroy the finances of many of the clubs in the league. He also has regularly spent more on annual wages than his club earns in revenues. - From the Telegraph

Project Big Picture is the right deal for the English Football League - or we risk the whole pyramid crumbling
ANDY PILLEY OCTOBER 12, 2020

Nobody has taken ownership of the crisis facing English football, it’s been passed like some sort of hot potato between the government, Premier League and DCMS, and none of them have come up with a solution. Without any form of financial assistance, though, we’re looking at tombstones in the English Football League and I think the whole pyramid could crumble.

When the news about ‘Project Big Picture’ broke, I wanted to digest the proposals and see what exactly they meant for the EFL and for myself and my club, Fleetwood Town. I’ve done that and I see a lot of good in them - a short-term rescue package and a long-term plan offering much fairer distribution of wealth that, combined with the salary caps, would be a recipe for success.

Around £25 million annually for each Championship club, roughly £4m each for League One clubs and £2.5m each for League Two sides is night and day to what we have at the moment. The inflation in revenue that could come off the back of it would not only save us from disaster but allow us to invest in and raise standards around all aspects of our football clubs.

All of a sudden, it would give EFL clubs the stability they need to ensure they remain integral parts of the community.

We cannot be dismissive. It staggers me that a proposal comes out and people are instantly vilified for putting forward something that would mean the EFL survives and a much more stable, level playing field throughout the pyramid is created. In the Championship, it would put an end to this ridiculous situation whereby Watford, for example, this year receive £44m through parachute payments and Blackburn just £8m. How can that be fair and in the best interests of the competition?

Under these proposals and with the salary caps, clubs will find they can’t spend more money on football players so inevitably will invest in other areas. Training grounds are going to improve and that, in turn, will lead to better players being produced, much to the benefit of the Premier League and, ultimately, the national team.

The idea of a fund that will assist with stadium redevelopment is exciting and a maximum admission price of £20 could see teams playing in front of larger crowds in better grounds.

Of course, as with any deal, there have to be consequences of accepting the extra money and I understand the issue of voting rights is hugely contentious and would be a bitter pill for some Premier League clubs to swallow.

But the big six or seven are the ones who sell all the global TV rights and bring all the money in. We can say that everybody should get an equal vote but if the big six or seven were not in that competition, people are not going to pay the same money for TV rights; the other clubs don’t have the same global appeal.

In reality, they have the power, just like in the EFL the Championship has the power and can veto and overwrite any rule change that goes on in the EFL. So is it so different and unreasonable to allow the big six or seven to do the same in the Premier League given that they are the ones, ultimately, who have the biggest influence on the value of the TV deals? I think there’s a real danger that if this doesn’t get over the line we run the risk of a breakaway league and the reality is the money will always follow the big six or seven wherever they go.

A redistribution and reset is long overdue. There are a lot of people who have been ranting and making out it is all about self-interest and greed but there is an appetite for change here and a compromise could and should be available for the greater good of the game that will save football from the impending doom it faces and fit the agenda of the big six clubs.

dsr
Posts: 11338
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3315 times
Has Liked: 1394 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by dsr » Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:22 am

Chester Perry wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:16 pm
except Parry has invited them to quit the Premier League and join the EFL on the terms outlined - without asking his members
I have no objection to Liverpool and Man United joining the football league. Fourth division, of course. :lol:

dsr
Posts: 11338
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3315 times
Has Liked: 1394 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by dsr » Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:25 am

To sum up: Liverpool and Man United have decided that the PL should give more money to Liverpool and Man United and less money to other clubs. And they want other clubs to vote for it.

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:42 am

dsr wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:25 am
To sum up: Liverpool and Man United have decided that the PL should give more money to Liverpool and Man United and less money to other clubs. And they want other clubs to vote for it.
and then they want to be given the power to stop anyone challenging that position of power

buzzclarets79
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:05 am
Been Liked: 76 times
Has Liked: 102 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by buzzclarets79 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:09 am

I never thought I'd ever see my beloved Burnley grace the premier league, one of my very first games was the play off final in 1994 vs Stockport so I'd only ever watch the clarets in the lower leagues, constantly struggling with finances, watching the crazy 7-4, 6-2, 6-5 games under Stan, so when we actually made it to the premier, like many other fans it was like a dream, come true. Finally we'd made it to the big time, not only would we get to see the big teams grace the turf, but the financial gains to a club like Burnley would be massive.

The thing is I'm actually kind of missing the times when we were in the lower leagues, constantly 3pm Saturday KO or an evening match on a Tuesday, home and away felt somewhat different to what it is now in the premier. Felt more like football if that makes sense.

If it wasn't for the money side of things for a club like ours, I wouldn't care about the PL at all, that's the sad thing about all this, the game has simply become about ££££

Spiral
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Spiral » Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:25 am

buzzclarets79 wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:09 am
I never thought I'd ever see my beloved Burnley grace the premier league, one of my very first games was the play off final in 1994 vs Stockport so I'd only ever watch the clarets in the lower leagues, constantly struggling with finances, watching the crazy 7-4, 6-2, 6-5 games under Stan, so when we actually made it to the premier, like many other fans it was like a dream, come true. Finally we'd made it to the big time, not only would we get to see the big teams grace the turf, but the financial gains to a club like Burnley would be massive.

The thing is I'm actually kind of missing the times when we were in the lower leagues, constantly 3pm Saturday KO or an evening match on a Tuesday, home and away felt somewhat different to what it is now in the premier. Felt more like football if that makes sense.

If it wasn't for the money side of things for a club like ours, I wouldn't care about the PL at all, that's the sad thing about all this, the game has simply become about ££££
As a club we obviously have a situational opposition to these ridiculous proposals because if implemented they screw us over (as fans it appears we have near-unanimous moral opposition), and while I'm cynical enough to recognise that it might be a bit harder for Burnley to oppose these rules were circumstances different (see: shifting opinions on parachute payments) and, for example, were we one of the 9 with a vote, the fact of the matter is we are not one of the 9 and we are on the record as opposing the proposals. Yes, the absurdity of these rules and how it would impact us makes it far easier for Burnley to 'do the right thing', but it's also very heartening to know that we are against them, and crucially, are so while having a sustainable and relatively successful club not bought but built through shrewdness, acumen and graft without having ever lost our identity along the way. We're virtually the same club as we were during the days in the doldrums, just much better.

In an era of increasingly more aggressive commercialisation, at a time when fans talk of revenue streams and market forces (I'm guilty as anyone, unfortunately), such romantic notions - pride, honour, etc - might be laughed at or thought as idealistic, but balls to anyone who wants to deprive me of my romantic notions about football because those notions are the very reason I support Burnley rather than doing something more practical like supporting Liverpool or Real Madrid. In spite of what anyone says it's not at all quixotic to uphold those principles and values (if that's what you want to call them...i.e. trying your best to keep a level playing field, such as it exists in the sport) that make English football what it is, in defiance of rapacious, pillaging foreigners with no sense of humour and too much ego who are so keen to impose themselves on our game to further 'commercial opportunities', or worse yet, to cultivate political capital. Put simply, I'm glad we aren't completely plastic, and parochial as that might seem to anyone who fancies themselves as a sober analyst, screw anyone who looks down on that. /End of grandstanding rant!

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:50 am

Spiral wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:25 am
As a club we obviously have a situational opposition to these ridiculous proposals because if implemented they screw us over (as fans it appears we have near-unanimous moral opposition), and while I'm cynical enough to recognise that it might be a bit harder for Burnley to oppose these rules were circumstances different (see: shifting opinions on parachute payments) and, for example, were we one of the 9 with a vote, the fact of the matter is we are not one of the 9 and we are on the record as opposing the proposals. Yes, the absurdity of these rules and how it would impact us makes it far easier for Burnley to 'do the right thing', but it's also very heartening to know that we are against them, and crucially, are so while having a sustainable and relatively successful club not bought but built through shrewdness, acumen and graft without having ever lost our identity along the way. We're virtually the same club as we were during the days in the doldrums, just much better.

In an era of increasingly more aggressive commercialisation, at a time when fans talk of revenue streams and market forces (I'm guilty as anyone, unfortunately), such romantic notions - pride, honour, etc - might be laughed at or thought as idealistic, but balls to anyone who wants to deprive me of my romantic notions about football because those notions are the very reason I support Burnley rather than doing something more practical like supporting Liverpool or Real Madrid. In spite of what anyone says it's not at all quixotic to uphold those principles and values (if that's what you want to call them...i.e. trying your best to keep a level playing field, such as it exists in the sport) that make English football what it is, in defiance of rapacious, pillaging foreigners with no sense of humour and too much ego who are so keen to impose themselves on our game to further 'commercial opportunities', or worse yet, to cultivate political capital. Put simply, I'm glad we aren't completely plastic, and parochial as that might seem to anyone who fancies themselves as a sober analyst, screw anyone who looks down on that. /End of grandstanding rant!
not a bad rant - but the number of times I have seen Burnley mentioned in connection to this is crazy - always in reference to Dyche's comments on "why should the Premier League bail out football" is incredible, there is a definite underlying current of hope that our club gets it's comeuppance as a result. I have always suspected Dyche was talking about the fact that it felt like our club was been asked to bail out others when there was no recognition of the fact we were suffering because we had done things the right way, even putting our Premier League existence at risk by not over stretching financially when every one else seemed to be doing so, though it was obvious we needed new signings.

Spiral
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Spiral » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:18 am

I think the most severe charge a person could lay at Dyche would be that he was perhaps a little clumsy with his language at a time when a bit of ambivalence, even if just performative, might have been more appropriate, and from our perspective better media management, but is was an off-the-cuff remark and he shouldn't be nailed to a cross for it. You can't play football without anyone to play against, which is the reasoning behind a rescue package, but at the same time some other club's structural deficit isn't really our problem. Anyhow, this isn't the first time the hype machine has had it in for us for being frugal. I remember Graham Souness all but calling out Dyche for having the nerve...the NERVE...to choose to use our PL revenue on his first promotion to bring our facilities up to standard.

AlargeClaret
Posts: 2171
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
Been Liked: 671 times
Has Liked: 66 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by AlargeClaret » Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:39 am

In summary it appears that
1.The “ big clubs” owners want to secure ( or as good as ) guaranteed premier league survival and European football nearly every season ,gradually leading to a euro super league .

2.League Fixtures also occasionally likely to take place in leading sponsor markets ( Far East / Middle East /USA etc)

3. Sugaring the pill by giving enough money to keep the lower leagues in business while making the championship considerably weaker ( no parachutes) .

4. In the long run I’d imagine reducing relagation / promotion spots to/from prem to make their investments even more secure and almost bulletproof ala US franchise model

Chester Perry
Posts: 11867
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 1625 times
Has Liked: 437 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Chester Perry » Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:44 am

posted this on the MMT thread but appropriate here too
Chester Perry wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:43 am
Yet more details emerging in the Telegraph's policy of gradual reveal - the mechanics of this are barmy, FSG have constantly moaned about clubs in the bottom half of the league not spending enough to make them more attractive/competitive for international audiences, now they want them to spend even less. Reading this all I see is the movement of the Championship financial madness to the bottom half of the Premier League the risks are just preposterous.

Revealed: Premier League clubs outside Big Six fear they will be worse off under Project Big Picture proposals
SAM WALLACE OCTOBER 12, 2020

Premier League clubs outside the elite fear they would be worse off under the terms proposed by Project Big Picture (PBP), the Liverpool and Manchester United-driven restructure of the English game which would see the top flight reduced from 20 to 18 clubs.

Since Telegraph Sport revealed the details of the plan, already on its 18th draft, and lead by Liverpool and United, the rest of the clubs in the league have pored over the details of how revenue would be divided at the proposed PBP start point - the 2022-2023 season.

The latest PBP draft is currently doing the rounds at Premier League clubs with projections for what each club would earn in 2022-2023 compared to the earnings by club for the 2019-2020 season. The Premier League has told clubs that its central principle of being the most equitable league in Europe is under threat from the PBP proposals, going from a ratio of 1:1.7 currently between top and bottom to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted.

Under the new PBP terms, for the first three seasons of its operation, all Premier League clubs would receive a minimum of £100 million per season. Calculated earnings would be supplemented to reach that threshold. Nevertheless, newly-promoted clubs would be obliged to put aside £25m from each of their first two years in the division, repayable in the case of them being relegated. If the club stayed in the division for five years, that £50m would be returned to them.

From the 2023-2024 season, the PBP proposals abolish parachute payments into the Championship which have traditionally guaranteed a soft landing for relegated clubs. For 2022-2023, PBP proposes a transitional arrangement for clubs already benefiting from parachute payments but those clubs would only be permitted to spend those funds on the contracts of players signed while they were in the Premier League.

Under the new PBP formula, 25 per cent of a club’s total earnings from central revenue would be based on the average position they have achieved in the three previous seasons instead of the number of times they have appeared live on television - as it is currently. The remainder of the calculation would stay the same, with 50 per cent of central revenues distributed equally and the remaining 25 per cent on final league position.

That would mean newly-promoted teams would earn much less, as a disadvantage from a lower average position over the previous three seasons. In the latest PBP document which has revenue modelling for the proposed 18-club 2022-2023 Premier League season, five clubs earn less than £100m, with all of them paid the balance to reach that minimum. Those projections are based on an estimated 10 per cent uplift in revenues across the board.

Premier League clubs modelling the PBP proposals believe that by the 2025-2026 season – when the £100m per club guarantee has expired - a newly-promoted club would have budget for earning between £40m to £50m should it finish in last place. Its total earnings would be around £70m to £75m and it would be obliged to bank £25m putting total earnings at £40m to £50m. The bottom-placed club currently earns more than £100m.

Premier League clubs are also concerned that they will have less access to borrowing, with their banks often prepared to use the guarantee of parachute payments as security on loans in case of relegation. Any new Premier League club owner would also be restricted by a PBP proposal to comply with Uefa financial fair play rules which prohibits investment of any more than €35m (£31.6m) over three years. The current Premier League rules allow owner-investment of £105m over three years.

THEWELLERNUT70
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:13 pm
Been Liked: 650 times
Has Liked: 1457 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by THEWELLERNUT70 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:55 am

The proposal as it stands is like receiving a velvet glove as a present thats loaded with a granite fist. Sure it looks great on the face of it , but eventually it'll destroy everything

RMutt
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 pm
Been Liked: 190 times
Has Liked: 46 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by RMutt » Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:00 am

Unbridled capitalism without a social conscience. It’s a bit like what the introduction of supermarkets did to the high street.

Conroysleftfoot
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 49 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by Conroysleftfoot » Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:03 am

Leeds fans must be p####d off. All that time to get back to the top league and then screwed by their 'favourite ' team Man Utd. Surely the money people behind teams like Leeds are going to be seriously thinking of pulling the plug.

ClaretPope
Posts: 663
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:14 pm
Been Liked: 60 times
Has Liked: 350 times

Re: Premier League - Project Big Picture

Post by ClaretPope » Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:48 am

Another very good piece just released by the FSA:
Football is in crisis, many clubs desperately need financial support to help them survive, and the game’s wealth has to be shared more fairly – but the ‘Project Big Picture’ plans are not the answer and they would be an absolute disaster for our game.

The insatiable greed of a small handful of billionaire owners cannot be allowed to determine the structure of football in this country.

Their desire to stitch things up behind closed doors, without even speaking to their fellow clubs, let alone fans, makes crystal clear the urgent need for the Government’s promised fan-led review of football governance.

We are not defending the status quo but ‘Project Big Picture’ is not the answer.

Supporters are open to new ideas to improve football’s governance but we don’t remember any fans making the argument that what football really needs, is for more money and power to be handed to the billionaire owners of our biggest clubs. That trend is already built into the system, and we need to stop it, not accelerate it further.

Within the proposals there are individual ideas which many fans would back – but in this form it is impossible to disentangle them from outcomes which would be a disaster for the game.

Premier League impact

The Premier League would be reduced in size from 20 teams to 18 and more money would be directed towards the most successful teams, who in turn would hoover up even more of the best players, reducing competition throughout the entire league.

League rules would be controlled by as few as six clubs who would gobble up a bigger share of the pie than they already do while abolishing the League Cup and Community Shield.

The ruling clubs would be Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Southampton, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham, as determined by their length of service in the Premier League. Media reports suggest the plans are being driven by the owners at Liverpool and Manchester United.

A vote by two-thirds of those clubs would dictate the rules for the rest, meaning half of the top-flight’s clubs would compete in a league which they had no say in running.

The named clubs would also control the “distribution rights of the sponsorship, commercial and broadcasting rights sold” and would be allowed to “alter in a material way the nature of the competition” which opens the door again to Game 39 or even madder schemes.

As six clubs can set the rules, who could stop them ending relegation from the Premier League and creating a franchise system like they have in US sports? No one. Who could stop them from rewriting the rules in a few years so that the top six keep all the media money? No one. Who could stop them cutting funding entirely to the EFL or grassroots football? No one.

Supporters cannot let the greed of a few billionaire owners destroy our league system.

And what about the EFL?

For EFL clubs the impact could be even more drastic. While Project Big Picture dangles an alleged £250m “rescue fund” in front of clubs to cover lost revenues during the 2019-20 season they might actually be a sugar coated cyanide pill.

Apparently “money will be advanced to the EFL from increased future revenues”. Is there a guarantee that the money will even materialise? The entire package is based on projected revenues which are, in turn, based on the current media deal. Where is the guarantee that will happen?

Under the proposals top-flight clubs retain eight games per season which they can sell directly via their own platforms, rather than broadcasting in the traditional manner. Would broadcasters pay more money for fewer games? It seems unlikely. Especially if the clubs chose to keep the rights for the games which are deemed most attractive to a global audience.

EFL clubs would also lose all League Cup revenue as that competition will be nuked, which in turn will see their own media revenues collapse, as broadcasters will not pay nearly as much for EFL rights, if the League Cup is no longer part of the package. Although maybe that wouldn’t matter as “the EFL irrevocably grants its broadcast rights to the EPL”!

Since six billionaire club owners can change the rules of the game at any time they like, and would control almost all of the revenue, there is no guarantee that they won’t pull up the drawbridge and cut funding entirely to the EFL, as it signed its own death warrant.

The billionaire owners have created a set of rules they can change at any time. It’s a one way street and there is no way back for domestic football once that power is handed over.

The FSA

We wouldn’t reject all the ideas – a £20 away cap on top-flight tickets and subsidised travel, guaranteed away allocations, and safe standing areas are all things we back – but the reality is that the overall package is not acceptable to supporters.

A rescue package for EFL and National League clubs is needed alongside better distribution of football’s wealth across the game to close the gap between the Premier League and the rest of the pyramid.

As an organisation we’re more than happy to consider changes to football’s structure but the place for that is the Government’s proposed fan-led review and it has to include all interested parties – fans, clubs, leagues, players, match officials, the FA, and so on.

It is not acceptable for billionaire club owners to hatch a plan in secret and then try and use the fallout from a global pandemic to buy compliance from financially crippled clubs.

We will be making that case in the strongest possible terms to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and all the football authorities, including the FA Council which meets on Thursday.

The Premier League and Government have to step up and deliver an alternative financial package urgently for the EFL and National League. It should cover lost gate receipts and matchday income. And urgently means details in hours, not days or weeks. Days or weeks means clubs going bust. Days or weeks means EFL clubs being tempted by the sugar-coated cyanide pill offered up by billionaire owners who do not understand or care about our football culture.

It’s now or never.

Post Reply