EPL Dictators!
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 doombear  Too far from Selhurst Park 12 Oct 20 9.38am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
I garland Martin's marvellous article with praise.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
jeeagles  12 Oct 20 9.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
The season would start later as well this is all so the big 6 can play their mickey mouse games in Asia the players wont be getting a rest just less competitive games. I just checked a Man United fan site they love the idea of reducing the league and more TV money for them and they completely gloss over the voting rights. I hope they are not a representative bunch. Remind them that for the last 7 years United have largely been on the findges of the big 6 and they've started this season in relegation form! No real suprise though, United fans are scared of competion. A guy I once knew told me that he thought being a Manchester United support was a sign of a mental ill. They'd be the kids who'd come into school boasting about how they completed Goldeneye on invisibility mode thinking that it makes them superior to everyone else... to put it into context, this guy ran half way house for dangerous schizophrenics being reintergrated back into society.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
taylors lovechild  12 Oct 20 9.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
With the lack of news at the moment there's going to be loads of sensationalism around this story. A few years ago the Times ran a April fools article about how the premiership was going to switch to an NFL style northern and southern section with playoffs to boost entertainment. They know this story sells papers. It's in the national team and big clubs interests to make the premier league smaller. 38 games a season is too much and it effects european and international performances. Something has got to be done to pass money down to the lower leagues. I'd like to think that the majority of premier league owners do understand that ringfencing the premier league will detract from the excitement and value of their product so they won't do anything to drastic. This initial proposal is likely to be a mixture of posturing by the premiership and exageration by the media. Having said that, I don't want to see the size of the league reduced as it decreases the chances of us getting relegated. and, I'm not sure broadcasters and sponsors would be happy to have the number of games reduced plus grounds like Old Trafford bring in millions of pounds per game. I'm not sure their accountants would like to lose two home matches. The most worrying thing for me is the voting rights. It could essentially mean all decisions are going to lean towards what favours the big clubs to the detriment of the rest of us. The international/european games argument doesn't wash with me as Liverpool have reached two out of the last three Champions League finals, with Spurs appearing in another. And then of course England reached the World Cup semis, losing because our players were not quite good enough, not because they were tired. Furthermore, the French, Italian and Spanish top leagues all have 20 teams, only the Germans have 18, and it is only Bayern who have particularly strong in Europe. Another concern is the proposal to scrap parachute payments. This would likely result in newly promoted teams being unable to invest in their squads due to the high risk of bankrupting themselves if they got relegated. It would also affect clubs like ours in terms of the ability to attract players as we would unlikely be able to risk long-term contracts unless there was a relegation clause. Maybe this is all hyperbole but there are several things in this proposal that are extremely worrying. It is like when a law passes that seems innocuous, but its real threat is that it leaves the door ajar for more serious implications. Rich Arab playboys and faceless conglomerates have no attachment to the game and wouldn't think twice about ruining it for everyone except themselves.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 12 Oct 20 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by taylors lovechild
The most worrying thing for me is the voting rights. It could essentially mean all decisions are going to lean towards what favours the big clubs to the detriment of the rest of us. The international/european games argument doesn't wash with me as Liverpool have reached two out of the last three Champions League finals, with Spurs appearing in another. And then of course England reached the World Cup semis, losing because our players were not quite good enough, not because they were tired. Furthermore, the French, Italian and Spanish top leagues all have 20 teams, only the Germans have 18, and it is only Bayern who have particularly strong in Europe. Another concern is the proposal to scrap parachute payments. This would likely result in newly promoted teams being unable to invest in their squads due to the high risk of bankrupting themselves if they got relegated. It would also affect clubs like ours in terms of the ability to attract players as we would unlikely be able to risk long-term contracts unless there was a relegation clause. Maybe this is all hyperbole but there are several things in this proposal that are extremely worrying. It is like when a law passes that seems innocuous, but its real threat is that it leaves the door ajar for more serious implications. Rich Arab playboys and faceless conglomerates have no attachment to the game and wouldn't think twice about ruining it for everyone except themselves. Actually this is one of the better ideas. At the moment the Championship is skewed in favour of teams that have this which makes it harder for the clubs promoted from below to compete. My preference would be to still have one but make it smaller and spread the rest around the EFL.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 12 Oct 20 10.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Good article from Martin Samuel makes a couple of points I hadn't considered. If I was an EFL club I would be furious at Rick Parry. He is supposed to be fighting for their rights. Before he made his very public announcement of support did he discuss any of this with the 72? His behaviour smacks of of being the chief spokesman for the big 6 does he want his old job back? Anyway if you can keep your blood from boiling worth a read Samuel has some excellent criticisms. There's a lot of truth in this article but it fails to provide an answer to a vital question: what's the alternative? I imagine if you're a Barrow or Cheltenham supporter you don't give a f*ck about Premier league voting rules. You just want to know your club will survive, and if the cash is offered, they'll take it. The real villains here are the Premier League. They've had 6 months to find a solution to football finances and have proposed nothing. Liverpool and United have come forward with a proposal that, surprise surprise, benefits their interests, but also provides an infrastructure for the grassroots game to continue. Until the Prem come forward with a counter proposal they're in no place to criticise. The worst scenario is half the football league goes bust and that's the path we're on right now. They need to prove they don't want that to happen.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jeeagles 12 Oct 20 11.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
There's a lot of truth in this article but it fails to provide an answer to a vital question: what's the alternative? I imagine if you're a Barrow or Cheltenham supporter you don't give a f*ck about Premier league voting rules. You just want to know your club will survive, and if the cash is offered, they'll take it. The real villains here are the Premier League. They've had 6 months to find a solution to football finances and have proposed nothing. Liverpool and United have come forward with a proposal that, surprise surprise, benefits their interests, but also provides an infrastructure for the grassroots game to continue. Until the Prem come forward with a counter proposal they're in no place to criticise. The worst scenario is half the football league goes bust and that's the path we're on right now. They need to prove they don't want that to happen. In defense of the premier league clubs, they are a business who are being asked to bail out competing businesses. That wouldn't happen in any other industry. Prachute payments are £50m for the first season. It's benefitial for premier league clubs to wait until the end of the domestic transfer window before entering into a deal. That way they can poach the best tallent at a discounted rate, and there will be a bit more certainty of how much money the football league needs to survive. Businesses with massive assets to sell shouldn't be given bail outs. Then it seems best to work out where this £250m bail out package is going to come from. If only 1 side is promoted and two sides are relegate over the next two seasons to balance things out it would seem the easiest way of making that money available. Possibly reverting to a 2 up 2 down system after than in an 18 team league. Having less teams relegated is likely to get more of the premier league members buy in.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 12 Oct 20 12.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
There's a lot of truth in this article but it fails to provide an answer to a vital question: what's the alternative? I imagine if you're a Barrow or Cheltenham supporter you don't give a f*ck about Premier league voting rules. You just want to know your club will survive, and if the cash is offered, they'll take it. The real villains here are the Premier League. They've had 6 months to find a solution to football finances and have proposed nothing. Liverpool and United have come forward with a proposal that, surprise surprise, benefits their interests, but also provides an infrastructure for the grassroots game to continue. Until the Prem come forward with a counter proposal they're in no place to criticise. The worst scenario is half the football league goes bust and that's the path we're on right now. They need to prove they don't want that to happen. This is a power grab by the big 6 under the guise that they are helping out the lower league clubs. Increasing the number of players a PL club can loan out will only hurt the lower leagues even more. The answer should be driven by the FA who are supposed to be the governing body of the game and whose silence has been deafening.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
eagleman13  On The Road To Hell & Alicante 12 Oct 20 12.11pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
This is a power grab by the big 6 under the guise that they are helping out the lower league clubs. Increasing the number of players a PL club can loan out will only hurt the lower leagues even more. The answer should be driven by the FA who are supposed to be the governing body of the game and whose silence has been deafening. The FA are getting £100m+ out of this, why should they comment. If they do, it will harm their 'unexpected' windfall.
I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold, |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| slubglurge welling 12 Oct 20 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Liverpool, City, United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs can join Barca Real PSG Bayern Juventus and Milan can all shove off and let the rest of us play real football again. They can play each other as much as they live and nobody will be interested
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 12 Oct 20 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
The FA are getting £100m+ out of this, why should they comment. If they do, it will harm their 'unexpected' windfall. Yes they are supposed to run the game if they wont speak up for the good of the football community then they should step aside for a new governing body. What exactly do they do?
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lucas Oliver Miles away 12 Oct 20 4.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eritheagle
West Ham and Soton are included in it and they both went up the season before us. Sorry what am I missing here, Newcastle and Villa barring the odd season must have 20 plus years each, Everton have won one FAcup 25 years ago
Nope it's not my name |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| roman eagle South London 12 Oct 20 4.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There are some good aspects to this proposal, mainly the extra money that the lower division clubs would receive. The sticking point though is the proposed voting structure of the premier league, which is a naked grab for power by the richest clubs, who want yet more money. How transparent this is can be shown by the way the new voting rights are to be allocated based on longevity in the Premier League. Clubs are to have 'special voting rights - the 'big 6' plus West ham, Southampton and Everton which seems quite arbitrary In that case Palace are the 10th longest surviving club in the league, but other clubs have many more seasons in the league such as Villa and Newcastle, who have played more seasons than Man City. Also former champions Leicester are not one of the 'special ones' despite winning as many titles as Liverpool and more than Spurs. No, this is anti-competitive and will turn a lot of fans off the game. The next step will be no promotion or relegation (the proposers are two American owned clubs) I'm glad to see West Ham have come out against
Audentis fortuna iuvat (Virgil, 19BC) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.