Premier League - Project Big Picture

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:30 pm

Could be over before it's even started

https://t.co/vXi5mL5kUY

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:38 pm

Murger wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:30 pm
Could be over before it's even started

https://t.co/vXi5mL5kUY

Let's hope so.

jedi_master · Post by **jedi_master** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:51 pm

Tall Paul wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:09 pm
The "incentive" is that if they vote against it they could be portrayed as the clubs that blocked the PL from providing the £250m rescue package to the Football League clubs.

Unfortunately, that is the way it is.

This scheme stands to negatively affect only 6 clubs in the entirety of the English football league system as far as I can see, and we’re one of them.

Not a chance that they would get 14 votes agreeing to this considering what could be the outcome for the clubs I reference (particularly in the midst of this pandemic which could, for all we know, go on another 5 years+). I never subscribe to the “I’m alright Jack” type of thinking, but on this matter we have to realise how lucky we are as a club that we get to potentially have a deciding vote in stopping this happening.

Clubs below us won’t go to the wall (well, some might, but they’ll be the ones that were already terribly run). It is in our interests for the ever widening financial chasm between the likes of ourselves and Preston, Blackburn and whoever else you care to mention to continue to widen. Sorry if that makes me sound elitist and selfish, but I’m looking on it as nothing but a Burnley fan here.

Burnley, Brighton, West Brom, Fulham, Sheff Utd, Crystal Palace, Newcastle for starters would never agree to a deal that is a potential existential threat to them. If that leads us and the others to be portrayed as the harbingers of death for smaller clubs, that is how it is - the real demon there is Covid-19 and the **** owners and poor business/sporting decisions they’ve made over the years that leave those clubs where they are, and leave us where we are.

Roger1960 · Post by **Roger1960** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:43 pm

In any other business existing companies having the power to veto new owners entering that field would be an illegal fetter of competition, this is a cartel plain and simple

Duffer_ · Post by **Duffer_** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:04 pm

Dark Cloud wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:04 pm
I also don't like the idea that the 2 major drivers here are both American and not British owners who at least may better understand the historical structure of the game here and how it affects communities and fans outside the big, glamour clubs. I'm not sure these people get that and how many fans support, live and breathe their clubs in the lower leagues, plus how the players discovered and developed in those lower leagues can become the PL stars of tomorrow.

I agree that this represents a lack of understanding about the inter-connectedness of football and the passion fans have for their clubs. I think the powers that be over-estimate the interest and the financial power of the self appointed Big 6, in this country at least. They have a less passionate and more transient fan base than the smaller clubs. They have a disproportionate number of younger fans who are financial dependents. I cannot think of a duller more sterile pool where all coverage looks like the Saturday Social on Sky Sports. I believe that show has a place btw but a diet of only that would be very unhealthy.

The logical conclusion of such changes is for the Big 6 to break away and join a European league. They would not see another penny from me. I would have literally zero interest in that competition. The rest of the PL clubs should be very wary of hitching their wagons to this because when they realise they have more in common with the EFL than the Big 6, and need the EFL to be part of a healthy competition, they might just find that they are no longer welcome, or worse still there is nothing left to join. Of course there will always be football leagues but not multi-billion industries that these bloated clubs would need to sustain their models.

Of course they are now quickly distancing themselves from this particular flavour of change but the cat is out of the bag. I would like to see the rest of the football community going on the front foot. For example, proposing levies on transfer fees to be reinvested in lower league, non-league and junior football. They want a war, let's have it!

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:04 pm

I chuckled at the cooking up of the “years since last promotion” rule because City wouldn't have been in the top 9 if it was total seasons.

I didn’t chuckle at the whole thing though - using death and devastation as an excuse for a blatant money grab, effectively blackmailed the other 86 clubs with the knowledge this could be their one and only chance for a financial bail out to offset the pandemic losses.

The government has to step in if the clubs capitulate on this. It goes totally contrary to the idea of what the government claims it wants to do in regenerating regions and small towns - effectively a lock out unless you are a southern club or the 4 Liverpool / Manchester clubs. If a club from any other area got a sniff, e.g. Leicester, Villa or Newcastle, the “big 9” would vote in a new rule and block it. As the document shows, there are dozens of proposed rules from everything like wage caps to stadium redevelopment. It’s obviously the route towards a no relegation super league too.

The big issue though is that this will kill football, and football is dying anyway, before the pandemic. The gap was getting too big. A radical change is needed, but one that puts fans not owners first, and I fear nobody has the balls to do it.

UnderSeige · Post by **UnderSeige** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:29 pm

I can't pretend to know the ins and outs of this but it seems to pong a bit. I love going to watch a match on a Saturday afternoon but I am sick of the Premier league.

I recently decided to throw no more money at Premier league football until it changes for the better. I will not subscribe to Sky Sports. I have recently cancelled my BT Sports account when they put the my subscription price up by 57% and made it sound like they were doing me a favour. I will not renew my Burnley season ticket and will no longer purchase Now TV day passes.

The only football that I will watch are the matches that are on freeview channels; Highlights programmes such as Match of the Day; Highlights on YouTube and the matches on Amazon Prime (because I subscribe to them for parcel deliveries and Prime TV anyway).

I am sick of the money grabbing clubs and players and the stupid rules and technology that they keep introducing. I am sick of having to watch matches at stupid reschedule times. I am sick of the unfair way that the top clubs get all the best players giving other clubs little chance of succeeding. What's the point?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:32 pm

Why are Southampton included?

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:36 pm

Spijed wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:32 pm
Why are Southampton included?

Because they’ve been in the Premier League longer than the other 11 teams I believe.
Farcical really.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:55 pm

Spijed wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:32 pm
Why are Southampton included?

it is a bit of a Fop - history suggests that at least 2 of the 9 votes are cyclical and will change hands at a fairly regular rate - with 6 votes bringing a majority the big 6 know they will be the only permanent fixture and will have permanent control if as now they agree everything en-bloc, these clubs are notorious for meeting up together before any key decision so they have a single voice - it has been going on for years.

brexit · Post by **brexit** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:53 pm

Not a problem for us it will hit in 2023 by that time we will be in league 2 facing another orient moment that the zimmers can mythologise for another 36 years

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:26 am

"Project Big Picture" is quite a funny way of pronouncing 'coup'. I'd say this idea should die in its crib but it's an utter abortion of an idea that should never have been birthed in the first place. Some of the commentariat are keen to flap their lips about the merits of wealth redistribution - fine...f.ucking go for it. There's nothing stopping the wealthy clubs from bailing out the not-wealthy ones, and there's no structural impediment to negotiating more redistributive commercial TV deals. UTD and Liverpool, the b@stards of English football now it seems (Shankly and Busby turn in their graves) can frame this as £progress£ (oops, wrong keystroke) as much as they like, and contrarian journalist can "but akshully" all they like (they need to pay the mortgage), but the bare truth of the situation is this: aspiring benevolent dictators promise to be benevolent. Yup. Because that's a historically sound gamble. This is approaching monopoly/oligopoly football. F'k it, lets just rename the PL the East India Football Company. I'm at my tethers end with football quite honestly. We always knew these clubs were absolute c.unts, but the mask slipping today really has soured me. Liverpool...LIVERPOOL, the gravitational centre of British democratic socialism...wants to close the shop, wants to disempower the minnows, wants to aggravate the free-marketisation of a sports league. B@stards. I hope those two clubs are never forgiven for even suggesting this, and I hope that quisling Richard Parry meets his career end for endorsing it.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:29 am

Parry clearly has no interest at all in what's best for football, and a strong interest in feathering his own nest. I can't work out whether the point of this plan is to ensure that the "big six" have absolute power for all time and the payments to the FL are just the sop to get it through, or if the FL payments are the main point and the stupid new voting scheme is the plan to get the "big six" to force it through.

Either way, there is no sense at all to linking the two. Increasing payments to the FL teams, probably a good idea. But it has no bearing whatsover on the PL voting system. If any politician said that we will double all pension and social security payments on condition that only the rich are allowed to vote, it would be thrown out without discussion. So must this be.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:39 am

Just to add to my post above, it might seem contradictory for me to state that clubs want to close shop while also aggravating the free-marketisation of football, but the point is that those clubs, it seems, want to enact rule changes to guarantee their brand's place at the table before using their power to aggressively market said brand as a sports-entertainment product, all at the expense of the league's integrity and welfare, and their 'ownership' of the league precedes, and is a vehicle to, the aggressive marketisation of their respective brands, so that isn't a contradictory statement.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » 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

RalphCoatesComb · Post by **RalphCoatesComb** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:10 am

DAVETHEVICAR wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:14 pm
Can’t see them getting 14 votes from the 20 members of the Premier League

They won't need 14.

They'll make it "top 6 only" to vote and ratify it after the event.

Not good for the future of the game and ruins its history but, money talks and they will probably have their way

9thMay1987 · Post by **9thMay1987** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:16 am

As I understand it parachute payments will be scrapped.

What is the point of promotion from the Championship?

If promoted clubs buy players and pay wages to compete with the established PL clubs and are still relegated, as happens now , what happens then/

Do they then go bankrupt because of debt trying to compete- I do not see the point of promotion.

ashtonlongsider · Post by **ashtonlongsider** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:20 am

Pity the founder members of the Football League didn't have the hindsight to place a monopoly on proceedings when the FL was formed in 1888. I know its a long time ago but principals are principals and are there for the greater good of all. To me the supposed proposal is akin to a closed shop and smacks of elitism, but the sooner it happens and the PL can implode due to lack of real competition the better for me.

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:20 am

Basically you’ve got American owners at United and Liverpool wanting to run football their way. Abolishing the structures that have run football independently and democratically for decades. Abolishing one club one vote. Abolishing the LeagueCup and Charity Sheild. Get stuffed.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:22 am

All looks like a complete and utter con.

I'm out.

DomBFC1882 · Post by **DomBFC1882** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:48 am

My love of football is diminishing quick. Can't see myself watching it much longer tbh and I much prefer watching boxing nowadays anyway.

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:01 am

Man Utd and Liverpool do not have the best interest of the pyramid in their hearts, it’s all about money and by giving the EFL £250 as a sweetener they will earn even more in the long run.

There is a statement that “Money Corrupts“ and it is none more true than in football. Even my club is a little bit guilty, I have a programme pre 2009 with Barry Kilby moaning about the unfairness of the parachute payments and that it needs reforming but I can’t remember him bringing up this issue once we “joined the club”

From what I have seen in the last few months with the big clubs spending nearly £1bn in the window against our £1mil, Mezut Ozil on £350k a week whilst many at the same club get made redundant, the introduction of PPV, if that is how they want it to be let them go.

Top Claret · Post by **Top Claret** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:08 am

Can't see many clubs out of the top 6 voting this through.

They have only included the likes of West Ham and Southampton to try and gain their votes to push this through.
The pair of them fight relegation every season losing the parachute monies could cripple them.

Yanks don't give a toss about the sport or our traditions because they don't understand them, we will just go the way of American sport with no promotion or relegation

SalisburyClaret · Post by **SalisburyClaret** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:29 am

So they have 9 votes already - top 6 plus the chosen ones- they don’t need many more!

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:41 am

dsr wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:29 am
Parry clearly has no interest at all in what's best for football, and a strong interest in feathering his own nest. I can't work out whether the point of this plan is to ensure that the "big six" have absolute power for all time and the payments to the FL are just the sop to get it through, or if the FL payments are the main point and the stupid new voting scheme is the plan to get the "big six" to force it through.

Either way, there is no sense at all to linking the two. Increasing payments to the FL teams, probably a good idea. But it has no bearing whatsover on the PL voting system. If any politician said that we will double all pension and social security payments on condition that only the rich are allowed to vote, it would be thrown out without discussion. So must this be.

I was thinking the same. Why should the clubs in the prwm, voting against this deal , be seen as the bad boys screwing the EFL. Let's have a second vote, give them the money but no changes to the league. Let's see who the bad boys are then.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:55 am

I don’t see much mention or debate on the removal of parachute payments.

That would spell financial disaster for every relegated club, probably bankruptcy and removal from the league structure.

If we were relegated under these new rules, we would probably be reapplying for entry into the football league at their 7-8 the year after.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:01 am

Realistically this isn't going to go through.

However, when the next proposal comes through it will appear a bit more realistic than this one and the big clubs will chip away.

It's happened already in some areas. There has been a reallocation of overseas TV revenue that is more favourable to the big clubs for instance.

RMutt · Post by **RMutt** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:09 am

Parachute payments are made to help clubs cope with the loss of revenue after relegation. A safety net because they would have had greater expenditure in the top league. On first look the change to a more equitable share among all league clubs appears to be fairer. The problem is that clubs would need to readjust their financial model to cope with the drop from the Premier League probably before they even go up. Only the very rich clubs could afford to go up. It would price the likes of Burnley out of the Premier League, which is probably what they want.

RalphCoatesComb · Post by **RalphCoatesComb** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:16 am

ashtonlongsider wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:20 am
To me the supposed proposal is akin to a closed shop and smacks of elitism, but the sooner it happens and the PL can implode due to lack of real competition the better for me.

I haven't had time to read much on this but I do like the idea of the TOP 6 "doing one", clearing off, and playing one another 4 times per season. They would then be able to exclude "the rabble" that don't have to funds to compete in their League.

Elitism? Yeah...

"HAVE IT"

Longsidebogs · Post by **Longsidebogs** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:27 am

I think this will end my already faltering interest in British football. Pure greed. RIP to a once great game.

Jenny55 · Post by **Jenny55** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:38 am

Perhaps they should rename Project Big Picture to Project Bit Richer for the benefit of the top six?

Cirrus_Minor · Post by **Cirrus_Minor** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:51 am

I must admit that all of this is turning me off football, a game I have loved since I was a small boy.

When I see the money thrown a Bale to get him back to Spurs, the weekly amount that could save Macclesfield from being liquidated, the way that Premier league clubs are blatantly throwing money at buying success and even getting away with breaking the pathetic rules in place to make the game 'fair', I just despair. Now this, the top clubs want even more.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:15 am

Cirrus_Minor wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:51 am
Now this, the top clubs IT ALL.

corrected that for you

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:22 am

This plan will kill the most successful Sports league competition ever within 5 years of being set up. We will be lucky to maintain two professional leagues....

They have overplayed their hands and if the Government have any sense they will immediately open a Competitions enquiry. That this is nothing more than a attempt to introduce an official oligarch should not just be stopped, those behind it should be prosecuted.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:40 am

I have posted up the thread that the ECA plan's for UEFA club football was a influence on this - this just underlines the position of the key players in Project Big Picture in the ECA

https://twitter.com/gdunbarap/status/13 ... 6446361607

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:54 am

I’m being hypothetical here, I certainly don’t want to cast any suggestions about our potential new owners.

But......

These “big 6” owners are Sheikhs, oligarches, billionaires etc. They wield enormous power. Governments around the world bend to their will at times. If they want something, it will be hard to stop it.

How hard is it to imagine them counting their votes (say they have 10, but need 14), and as a result a few other clubs are taken over by people they know, perhaps with a lucrative deal in an unrelated business as a sweetener to get them to vote for this change?

I’m growing increasingly cynical. This is the football equivalent of UK crown jewel companies being sold off to overseas buyers, soon followed by things happening which aren’t in the UK’s interests. Unless government blocks these billionaires instead of craving their cash, these changes will continue to happen. I’m not optimistic for football.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:22 pm

Watching Rick Parry this morning on TV talk about it was sickening.
Bare faced liar.
He needed a real grilling with what he was saying but BBC breakfast aren’t up to that - no doubt that’s why he’s more than happy to front them.

Simple question needed asking to Parry.
If the proposals are all about helping the lower leagues and giving them these millions which are needed for their survival as he was so eager to get across why are the Premier League just not doing this element ? Why do they want something in return ? (and it’s hardly a small thing they are after is it ?)

We just have to hope there are enough teams prepared to vote against this. Tbh I would be more than happy for United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal to all f-uck off with the other big teams in Europe and set up their own league. I would not care one bit if Burnley never played these teams again. The supporters of these clubs would all hate this scenario - even better for me. The league that would be left would still be competitive - yes there would be less money but that would be a good thing. Hopefully we would get back to more loyalty from players, more young players coming through and less of the chasm that exists between all the leagues now. I honestly believe it would be for the good of the game. And if that tw-at Rick Parry can go get a new job helping set all this up....even better.

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:19 pm

Maybe I've missed it but I haven't come across any info explaining just how the league would reduce from 20 to 18. Anyone know?

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:23 pm

West Ham are the first Premier League club to publicly brief against Project Big Picture

Premier League: West Ham are against radical Big Picture plans
By Simon Stone
BBC Sport
Last updated on35 minutes ago

West Ham are against radical plans by Liverpool and Manchester United to reform the English football pyramid, according to a club source.

The Project Big Picture proposals have been put together by Liverpool owner John Henry and United co-chairman Joel Glazer.

Everton, Southampton and West Ham would be granted special status in the plans, along with the so-called 'big six'.

However, a Hammers insider has told BBC Sport they are "very much against" it.

It is understood the club were unaware of the proposals, even though they were named in them - and were shocked when they emerged into the public domain on Sunday.

The source said they were of the view Liverpool and United were the instigators but that they had been told talks have been going on since January and what has emerged is the 17th version of the proposal.

The plans also include special status for Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham.

The 'Project Big Picture' proposals
- The Premier League cut from 20 to 18 clubs, with the Championship, League One and League Two each retaining 24 teams.
- The bottom two teams in the Premier League relegated automatically with the 16th-placed team joining the Championship play-offs.
- The League Cup and Community Shield abolished.
- Parachute payments scrapped.
- A £250m rescue fund made immediately available to the EFL & 25% of all future TV deals
- £100m paid to the FA to make up for lost revenue.
- Nine clubs given 'special voting rights' on certain issues, based on their extended runs in the Premier League.
line

The Hammers feel the obvious negatives - the loss of two home games - will hit their finances, while at the same time creating space for more European games and lucrative pre-season friendlies, which would disproportionately benefit the 'big six'.

The plans include reducing the Premier League to 18 clubs and scrapping the EFL Cup.

In return, the EFL would get 25% of all future TV deals, which would be negotiated jointly, plus the £250m bail-out many clubs have been demanding since May.

This is the fourth season in a row where the 'big six' have all qualified for European football. In the past 10 seasons, one of them has missed out on only four occasions.

Over the past decade, West Ham have had two European campaigns, both of which ended during the qualifying rounds. Southampton and Everton have also qualified for Europe twice in the same period.

"The big six are using Covid for a power grab," said the West Ham source. "If this goes through, over time they will just use more and more for themselves."

It is not known what will happen if the plan - which has drawn criticism from supporters' groups, the government and the Premier League executive - is rejected.

The Premier League said "individual proposals" in the plan "could have a damaging impact on the whole game", and that it would continue its own work on a "resolution to the requirement for Covid-19 rescue funding" for the EFL.

However, one theory - which EFL chairman Rick Parry refused to dismiss when questioned specifically about it twice on Sunday - is that the six clubs have been told they could play within the Football League if their Premier League status was threatened.

One source with detailed knowledge of running clubs at both Premier League and EFL level says the plan has merit but the fear of how the 'big six' might rewrite the rule book - potentially including halting relegation or blocking new owners whose investment may threaten their own status - was likely to be regarded as too big a price for many to accept.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:33 pm

Leisure wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:19 pm
Maybe I've missed it but I haven't come across any info explaining just how the league would reduce from 20 to 18. Anyone know?

Not sure that is out yet but proposal is still to keep 92 teams. They did say that the play offs would include a team from the Premier League too...presumably the 3rd bottom one.
That one is clearly one of the breadcrumbs they are trying to throw to clubs like Burnley

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:40 pm

I can see this proposal, if ratified, having a negative effect on massive outside investment being put into Championship and lower level PL clubs if it looks like the PL is heading towards becoming a closed shop. Championship clubs attract big benefactors solely with the purpose of attaining PL status and the increased revenues that this will generate.

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:42 pm

The big boys dont want clubs like us feeding out of their pig trough,the sooner the big 6....f**k off to their European super league the better,but along the way with this proposal they will try to destroy clubs like ours.........greed is a horrible trait.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:43 pm

TVC15 wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:33 pm
Not sure that is out yet but proposal is still to keep 92 teams. They did say that the play offs would include a team from the Premier League too...presumably the 3rd bottom one.
That one is clearly one of the breadcrumbs they are trying to throw to clubs like Burnley

proposal is for 90 teams
Premier League would relegate 4 in 21/22 - that is next season

that would allow for a changed of contract terms in the next TV rights cycle starting 22/23 the tender documents for which are due to go out in the next couple of months - though a small number of overseas territories have already been sold

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:46 pm

kentonclaret wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:40 pm
I can see this proposal, if ratified, having a negative effect on massive outside investment being put into Championship and lower level PL clubs if it looks like the PL is heading towards becoming a closed shop. Championship clubs attract big benefactors solely with the purpose of attaining PL status and the increased revenues that this will generate.

tbf that is part of the plan, though I also expect that the big clubs will want to cap profit taking by newly prompted clubs - to encourage "competitiveness" or at least to have some to sell their unwanted younger players too

Awayfromburnley · Post by **Awayfromburnley** » 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.....

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:53 pm

Chester Perry wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:43 pm
proposal is for 90 teams
Premier League would relegate 4 in 21/22 - that is next season

that would allow for a changed of contract terms in the next TV rights cycle starting 22/23 the tender documents for which are due to go out in the next couple of months - though a small number of overseas territories have already been sold

Cheers. So if they relegate 4 that would leave 16. So presumably there would only be 2 promoted from the Championship?

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:57 pm

A report out the other day said that many billionaires had doubled, and in some cases tripled, their personal wealth since the pandemic started.

The wealthiest clubs are never happy and always want a bigger slice of the cake.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:59 pm

kentonclaret wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:57 pm
A report out the other day said that many billionaires had doubled, and in some cases tripled, their personal wealth since the pandemic started.

The wealthiest clubs are never happy and always want a bigger slice of the cake.

link? who are these people?

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:00 pm

Leisure wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:53 pm
Cheers. So if they relegate 4 that would leave 16. So presumably there would only be 2 promoted from the Championship?

yep - they may even have a play off with 16th in the Prem and 3rd, 4th and 5th in the Championship

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:01 pm

kentonclaret wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:57 pm
A report out the other day said that many billionaires had doubled, and in some cases tripled, their personal wealth since the pandemic started.

The wealthiest clubs are never happy and always want a bigger slice of the cake.

The increase was 25% or so on average

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54446285